Anti-ecologist arguments

[Aslan]

Something I find interesting is the fact that some people are infact anti-ecological. Now, I am not a tree-hugger. but I can see the importance of the bio-sphere to humanity. If not for processes like the global conveyor belt, the Nitrogen cycle, the Oxygen cycle etc the world would turn into a venus-esqe greenhouse effect or worse. In fact anti-ecological arguments also have the Hugh of capitalistic expansionism in them meaning that they are best laughed off by fellow leftist or at worst taken as an attack on the global biosphere

[Antiochus]

No one here will be against ecology. In fact, you should talk to our resident PETA and wildlife expert Rafiq. Send him a pm explaining the primacy of ecology in our world.

[BIXX]

Rafiq

Listen, if it gets too hot on earth we will just pave the atmosphere a little to block incoming heat

[Aslan]

'' like to establish a group which could serve as a basis for resources against ecology-fetishism and it's offspring, namely, pseudo-Darwinist evolutionary psychology, biological determinism and a revived interest in Eugenics. The same ruthlessness Marx leveled against despicable scum like Malthus ought to be utilized today. The spontaneous ideology of the masses today is, contrary to what some of our more traditional leftists still stuck fighting battles won long ago like to claim, absolutely not religion. It is what can only be in the long term described as ecology - following globalization and the death of politics, a revived interest in the so-called "nature/nurture" debate, new age mysticism and reactionary ecology fetishism arguably has defined the coordinates of ideological obfuscation in postmodern capitalist society. The spontaneous ideological predispositions of the masses are no longer petty superstition, but an even worse monstrosity: Pseudo-Darwinist biological...''
I am talking about The combat ecology group.
In fact I also found an old discussion from Rafiq that explicitly states his beliefs.
I just want to know what he means by making the cities and countrysides as one. I also want a point about the ''fetishism'' in environmentalism.

[Rafiq]

Something I find interesting is the fact that some people are infact anti-ecological. Now, I am not a tree-hugger. but I can see the importance of the bio-sphere to humanity. If not for processes like the global conveyor belt, the Nitrogen cycle, the Oxygen cycle etc the world would turn into a venus-esqe greenhouse effect or worse. In fact anti-ecological arguments also have the Hugh of capitalistic expansionism in them meaning that they are best laughed off by fellow leftist or at worst taken as an attack on the global biosphere

Why do you start threads like this when you clearly aren't familiar with such arguments at all? I Again, do not try and hide anti-scientific, reactionary sensitivities under the guise of a pretense to the natural. We went down that road in the thread in question, I will not do this again for you. If you have any specific concerns, you can PM me.

You claim such arguments have a "hugh" of capitalistic expansionism in them. You can't pick and choose what is "capitalistic", and frankly, to talk about "capitalistic expansionism" as the predominant ideology of capitalism today is painfully stupid. Where is this ideology? Where do we find "capitalistic expansionism" as far as such arguments go? I'm so sick of Leftists who think we are living in the 1960's, as though it's a continuation of the counter-culture and the "big, fat, greedy capitalist" wearing a business suit smoking a cigar characterizes the modern bourgeoisie. Turn on your TV and tell me that the spirit which predominates society is one of "capitalistic expansionism" in spite of nature.

Even then, my point is not even to say "fuck nature", but to say that nature does not exist, that there is nothing magical about such processes, that they can be rationally and scientifically understood, and that precisely what is important about them can be located. That is the point of science all together. We are living in an ecological crises, and rather than employ a radical critique of the network of social relations which gives us a society where there is no regard for our common welfare in the pursuit of profit and private, particular interests, what we have no is reactionary garbage about how we're 'ruining mother nature' and about how humans are 'destroying something they have no right to destroy'. This is precisely what is reactionary, and sorry - but no, those who are opposed to environmentalism do not propose arguments which are anywhere close to mine. The agreements they put forward - the ones taken most seriously - are ones of denial. They deny that humans are capable of having such a permanent impact on god's great creations, they deny that there is any impending ecological catastrophe at all, which is just as much ecology-fetishistic as those prattling on about "da nature". When they justify actions that incur the wrath of environmentalists, like making a species go extinct, some of them might even employ ECOLOGICAL arguments about "survival of the fittest" and whatever.

So to call anti-ecology "capitalistic" or "right wing" is laughably stupid. Ecology is the new opium of the masses, it has replaced religion. Any new Communism will mercilessly crush it, and Communists everywhere should be violently opposed to it. We reaffirm the legacy of modernism and the enlightenment in doing so. As I stated before: nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.

Ideology works precisely by designating something without making it knowable in thought.

So if you approach such arguments by talking about basic truisms like how we depend on processes outside of our control, this is purely ideological insofar as you're trying to defend something that cannot even be rationally argued (the fetishism of ecology, a deeply situated pathology, as any ideology) under the guise of what is basically a truism.

The point is not allow such ideas to go unnoticed, and exempt from criticism in the acceptance of outward rational arguments that insinuate, or designate those ideas on a tacit level.



I just want to know what he means by making the cities and countrysides as one. I also want a point about the ''fetishism'' in environmentalism.

It was not me who emphasized talk about "cities and countrysides", but other users (referencing Marx, and I contested that Marx's point was one of leaving "nature" be, the different contextual nature of the quote, etc.).

The fetishism is not simply one of environmentalism, but of ecology.

This fetishism has nothing to do with a scientific emphasis on understanding ecological processes, or even how (at the present moment) important those processes are for society (and human lives, whose measure of worth we derive from society). A fetishism is by nature not scientific.

When I talk about the fetishism of ecology, I talk about the ideology of ecology - conferring to ecological processes powers that are beyond the actual processes themselves, in all their unstable provisionality (all ecologies were formed by catastrophes). This ideology is manifested in various ways in society: Evolutionary psychology, "paleo" diets, talking about "nature" like it has intentions and meaning underlying it, and so on. Many will criticize Mao for the catastrophic Four pests campaign. While the campaign was a disaster, the criticism almost always is expressed like "See what happens when you try to mess with nature"? and so on.

Likewise, the enemies of what would become the Bolsheviks would criticize Marxists for "interfering" with "natural" social processes in trying to bring the ideas of Communism to workers, i.e. the spontaneists. Typical bourgeois historians follow the same line - about how Marxists always push society in ways that are outside of its natural capabilities, about how we "interfere" like a foreign extruder in the natural goings of things. This is also precisely the logic of anti-semitsim: No ideology fetishizes ecology more than Fascism. I can go on about this, the obsession with the sacred "organic" and I can write you books about it. Everywhere and always this logic predominates the spiritual aroma that is our society - from media to all conventional wisdom. Upsetting the "natural balance", this is literally the most common theme on TV you can find. My point is that this is a pathologically reactionary tendency in society that represents the degeneration of capitalism, that it is a thoroughly anti-enlightenment pathology which coincides with a rise in a fascination with "alternative' spirituality and a decline of democratic standards.

I do not want to start another thread on the manner, because there is no point in repeating all of my arguments. Clearly you haven't read them, because if what you're taking away is that I think the Oxygen, or Nitrogen cycles are unimportant, you haven't read a fraction of the posts I made in that thread. Ultimately, if you want, my point is simple: Yes presently we are facing an ecological crises, yes it is unsustainable. But this has nothing to do with people "interfering" with nature or "exploiting" nature. It is that they are doing this without consideration of society's common welfare (even bourgeois society's at that!). My point is that it is possible to consciously understand natural or "ecological" processes in order to manipulate them, there are no gods, there is no thing called "nature" which we will force us to face repercussions.

I really, really don't want to get into this again. Just read my posts in the thread and PM me about any further questions. I do not want to, in this thread, deal with your emotional aversion to these ideas because I dealt with them before.

[Dasen]

I see nothing objectionable in what Rafiq posted. There is no "nature" agains man's actions. The chaos we call life should not be simplified as such.

And it's certain that environmentalism with its linked branches have a history of open or hidden mysticism and reactionary action. The image of "nature" as a single balanced force being preyed on by man does have an appeal among reactionaries.

It's ignorant to pretend that Capitalism has no use for environmentalism. Do you realize how many bourgeoisie or useful ideologues are in that bandwagon.

[BIXX]

I see nothing objectionable in what Rafiq posted. There is no "nature" agains man's actions. The chaos we call life should not be simplified as such.

And it's certain that environmentalism with its linked branches have a history of open or hidden mysticism and reactionary action. The image of "nature" as a single balanced force being preyed on by man does have an appeal among reactionaries.

I've never encountered this mentality, I believe it is made up.


It's ignorant to pretend that Capitalism has no use for environmentalism. Do you realize how many bourgeoisie or useful ideologues are in that bandwagon.

Same could be said about feminism and anti-racism, should we all hate women and non whites? Guilt by association is dumb. It's OK to have a critique but guilt by association is ridiculous.

[oneday]

Humans must end cuz biosphere (http://www.vhemt.org/) - how much more reactionary can you get?


I've never encountered this mentality, I believe it is made up.

[BIXX]

Humans must end cuz biosphere (http://www.vhemt.org/) - how much more reactionary can you get?

Having not perused their site thoroughly I don't know if the voluntary thing is a lie but assuming it isn't I don't think it's reactionary, rather it is their desired result for a voluntary human association. Assuming the voluntary is not a lie, then I don't think it's reactionary so much as somewhat silly.

[Dasen]

Where have you been looking? The notion that there is a great force against man has been cemented in environmentalism, wheter calley Gaia or not. And identity politics have a habit of not being grounded in class analysis (see "white privilege").

[Aslan]

Interesting..thank you for the time you spent clearing this out.

Also thank you for clearing out the ''leave nature be''point.

[Aslan]

True I must agree with that especially after I read the ever bourgeoisie friendly national geographic. They even think that ''the people who started this whole mess must be the ones to fix it'' What a load of reactionary nonsense.

[BIXX]

Where have you been looking? The notion that there is a great force against man has been cemented in environmentalism, whether called Gaia or not. And identity politics have a habit of not being grounded in class analysis (see "white privilege").

The cast majority of people I see saying we might wanna take care of the biosphere say so because we rely on it, entirely.

Also you sound like one of those dumb motherfuckers who say that only class matters and to solve issues for queers and women and non-whites we just gotta have communism cause that'll solve everything. FYI that's dumb.

[Rafiq]

We're going to be running in circles. Again, the point in the previous thread was a simple question: If were were able to replace our dependence on the biosphere with a more suitable, less predictable and controllable artificial process, would you have any objections to this?

Read the thread, because I incurred some interesting responses. Of course most people object to it - that is because for them nature is more than just the raw, catastrophic and provisional processes that constitute it. Nature is that ideological void where we project all our bourgeois superstitions upon, nature is the abyss that people derive a sense of confidence in the existing order. How? Because the minute nature is approached as precisely a series of provisional accidents and catastrophes is the minute that the same logic is applied to the social dimension. Ecology is the most rabid form of false consciousness, a false escape from what we associate with our relations to production. Ideology works like that - they will say "Well we rely on the biosphere". But the point is precisely that acknowledging our present reliance on the biosphere is not responsible for the superstitious and pathological notions of "nature" they cling on to. When they say this, they mean infinitely more than the innocent fact that we rely on the biosphere. This truism is meant to designate an inherently ideological, anti-modern, anti-scientific and thoroughly anti-enlightenment notion of nature.

[Aslan]

You describe ecology as something that automatically is ''reactionary''. You have a good point in saying that this is a ideological void that the bourgeoisie can use as a tool to supplant their own interests. However is it really justified to completely civilize non human nature? I don't want the humanity to expand for expansions sake. Nature in itself is of chaos, but I think completely eliminating is greatly counter to what communism should be like.
What I am saying is that instead of eliminating all nature, humanity needs to keep the special ecosystems that make up the world. I myself find the results of the ''chaos'' you describe as fascinating. Merely shrugging it off as chaos is a big understatement. I think that ecosystems should be studied scientifically and notworshiped.

But of course you will just shrug it off a reactionary statement and reject all of my points with you usual elegant insults...

[Rafiq]

You describe ecology as something that automatically is ''reactionary''.

Again, no, that isn't what I am saying. Actual ecologies are real. What I am "describing" is that ecology as ideology is indeed inherently reactionary. Ecology as science, like any other science, aims at its manipulation/change or the possibility of it.


However is it really justified to completely civilize non human nature? I don't want the humanity to expand for expansions sake. Nature in itself is of chaos, but I think completely eliminating is greatly counter to what communism should be like.
What I am saying is that instead of eliminating all nature, humanity needs to keep the special ecosystems that make up the world

Justified by who? Again, this is the crux of the point - this is why many recognize 'nature' is just another word for god. The standard pseudo-theological pathology is that humans have no "right" to destroy the sacred nature because it is all we have left of god's great creation. Humans wouldn't expand for expansions sake, but the point is that the enduring contradiction, after the social one is overcome, would be between the human mind and the world around it. That is because a Communist society would be pressed with the continual need for self-improvement and innovation. Take for example natural disasters, how we grow food, possible new energy demands, and so on. Even sustaining a quality of life that is close to, say, France for the entire world would be "ecologically" unstable under the present order. You also need to take account the fact that the whole continent of Africa, and to a large extent the middle east is presently a meat-grinder for raw materials - there is no imperative to industrialize most African or Middle eastern states today, but there certainly would be in a Communist world.

But nevermind such necessities. The very pathology to "defend" nature is itself anti-Communist. Let's play the devil's advocate - say we no longer needed such special ecosystems and that a more efficacious way of deriving whatever we need from them is devised. Why should such special ecosystems be "kept"? You claim humanity needs to do this, but why? As I have poured so much effort into saying, falling back on our present dependence on them doesn't answer the question - because your innate aversion to destroying nature is a pathological one, an ideological one and it has nothing to do with our real dependence on natural processes which can in fact be scientifically known and assessed, but a purported superstitious dependence on it, a "spiritual" one. In truth there is no meaning behind such "special" ecosystems. They were wrought into existence by chance and innumerable, and I am talking the vast majority of those to ever exist of species of animals and plants were not able to survive. Even if there were no humans the chaos alone (take for example, a large asteroid) can just as much annihilate and destroy all life on Earth. This is not because of "divine will" or because of "destiny", it is because there is no conscious intent, or meaning behind any of those processes. Only humans can ascribe meaning to things, so the question is whether we do so in a scientific or superstitious manner.

It's easy to be a Leftist in 2015. That is because "leftism" is shrouded with anti-enlightenment reactionary postmodern garbage and most Leftists look at what they see on TV and movies uncritically because it has a Left undertone. Take that disgusting movie Hotel Rwanda - there are few more despicable movies to have ever come out in the past 20 years. Most Leftists probably watched this and liked it because it pretended to have an "anti-western" tone, they don't even think critically about things. In fact most Leftism is just a perversion of the damned spectacle itself, most Leftism is just a capitalist perversion.

Do we want to look like the good guys on TV, or do we want Communism?

[Црвена]

Again, no, that isn't what I am saying. Actual ecologies are real. What I am "describing" is that ecology as ideology is indeed inherently reactionary. Ecology as science, like any other science, aims at its manipulation/change or the possibility of it.



Justified by who? Again, this is the crux of the point - this is why many recognize 'nature' is just another word for god. The standard pseudo-theological pathology is that humans have no "right" to destroy the sacred nature because it is all we have left of god's great creation.

While I hate this reactionary nonsense about "rights" as much as you do, I don't think the ecologist position necessarily invokes morality. Sure, it's bullshit to say that nature should be preserved because of its "greatness" or because "it was there first" but destroying nature is not going to help humans at all. Because of the misuse and destruction of natural resources which occurred and occurs under capitalism, we have tremendous amounts of waste, the prospects of peak oil and global warming, and just a generally more hostile and unpleasant environment for humans and other organisms to live in.


Humans wouldn't expand for expansions sake, but the point is that the enduring contradiction, after the social one is overcome, would be between the human mind and the world around it. That is because a Communist society would be pressed with the continual need for self-improvement and innovation. Take for example natural disasters, how we grow food, possible new energy demands, and so on. Even sustaining a quality of life that is close to, say, France for the entire world would be "ecologically" unstable under the present order. You also need to take account the fact that the whole continent of Africa, and to a large extent the middle east is presently a meat-grinder for raw materials - there is no imperative to industrialize most African or Middle eastern states today, but there certainly would be in a Communist world.

There is a contradiction between the human mind and the world around it in capitalism. There is also a need for endless expansion in order to satisfy the "infinite wants" described by capitalist dogma. The same does not apply in a society in which production is for human need as opposed to profit, because without being hampered by the ineptitude of the market at taking so-called externalities into account, we will be able to find ways to produce and innovate without sacrificing the environment or causing waste, by managing resources more carefully and focusing on reuse rather than mere expansion. This is exactly what "scientific planning" must involve: planning to take into account every cost and benefit to humans and directly decide which methods of production and distribution will deliver the most all-round desirable outcome, as opposed to doing what the market does and ignoring many of the costs of supposedly efficient production methods.



But nevermind such necessities. The very pathology to "defend" nature is itself anti-Communist. Let's play the devil's advocate - say we no longer needed such special ecosystems and that a more efficacious way of deriving whatever we need from them is devised. Why should such special ecosystems be "kept"? You claim humanity needs to do this, but why? As I have poured so much effort into saying, falling back on our present dependence on them doesn't answer the question - because your innate aversion to destroying nature is a pathological one, an ideological one and it has nothing to do with our real dependence on natural processes which can in fact be scientifically known and assessed, but a purported superstitious dependence on it, a "spiritual" one.

Well no, because at this moment in time, the human race is very much dependent on natural processes, and capitalism's wreckage of nature is going to have very real consequences, most severely in the form of global warming and its impact on the delicate balance of Earth. There's no point in talking about some distant future in which humans have truly conquered nature and cannot be touched by it. Communism is possible now, and we're trying to build it now. Until we've reached a stage at which what happens to nature is completely irrelevant to us, we're going to have to accept that a communist society must preserve nature.

And in any case, nature is pleasant to look at and experience and it inspires many people, and I imagine communism won't change that. So even if it has stopped affecting humans in any way, this is reason enough to preserve it: human enjoyment.



In truth there is no meaning behind such "special" ecosystems. They were wrought into existence by chance and innumerable, and I am talking the vast majority of those to ever exist of species of animals and plants were not able to survive. Even if there were no humans the chaos alone (take for example, a large asteroid) can just as much annihilate and destroy all life on Earth. This is not because of "divine will" or because of "destiny", it is because there is no conscious intent, or meaning behind any of those processes. Only humans can ascribe meaning to things, so the question is whether we do so in a scientific or superstitious manner.

I completely agree.

[Rafiq]

There is not one argument here which was not already addressed in the previous thread in question.


ecause of the misuse and destruction of natural resources which occurred and occurs under capitalism, we have tremendous amounts of waste, the prospects of peak oil and global warming, and just a generally more hostile and unpleasant environment

This has little to do with "doing things" to nature. The point is simple: This "destruction" and "misuse" occur for private interests, for profit. A society capable of wide-scale global coordination would be able to destroy nature in a way that does not harm humans. There is no reason to think otherwise.


There is a contradiction between the human mind and the world around it in capitalism.

In fact there is not. There is only one if you look at technological innovation's implementation in an indirect manner: the reality is that technological revolutions in capitalism never occur because of a bare bones contradiction between the human mind and capitalism, they all occur under the backdrop of the social antagonism and the demands of capital at any given time. In capitalist society, technology is only "conquered" once the historic processes the ruling order is not conscious of have made it either possible or outright inevitable. So no, this contradiction does not exist. Finally, you speak of "infinite expansion". The problem is not fantasies about infinite expansion as such, but the fantasies that purport it can be possible without thoroughly addressing the social antagonisms which exist in the intricacies of expansion. A Communist society would not merely be some creative re-organization of production to retain the capitalist superstructure, to retain society as a static one. As Engels understood, the last contradiction that would remain would be between man and nature.

It is not "just because". Sigh. I can't believe we're doing this again. As stated, there are problems which can only ever be sought to be improved so long as processes will exist outside of human control. We're talking about food consumption, medicine, disease, and the list goes on. A communist society will be "infinitely expanding", not because of some pathological desire to "conquer" the whole universe, but because despite the social antagonism disappearing, antagonisms of life and production would remain. A Communist society would not be static in fact, a Communist society might regularly change at the level of society in various ways. The difference is that such changes would be self-conscious. You can't simply not want to destroy nature if you recognize nature does not exist. Natural processes are just as catastrophic and of pure proximity as human manipulation of them. This is a basic premise of all science - the whole point of science is to not allow "things be", to understand how "things be" and to manipulate them for practical reasons.

Now if society would reach the level of a proletarian revolution, then this would not be a problem, the idols of nature would have long been cast down. But I am not talking to revolutionaries, I'm talking to self-identified Communists on an internet forum who are incredibly confused, who encapsulate a general problem of the Left and which - subsequently is why we cannot have a proletarian revolution in 2015.


This is exactly what "scientific planning" must involve: planning to take into account every cost and benefit to humans and directly decide which methods of production and distribution will deliver the most all-round desirable outcome, as opposed to doing what the market does and ignoring many of the costs of supposedly efficient production methods.

And you are beyond naive if you think that "da nature" will even factor into this. Are you aware that most of the world does not even live nearly at the level of those in advanced capitalist countries? Are you aware of the fact that, for example, the African continent will have to be industrialized, broken from the imperialist totality it will be able to modernize its productive capacities:


Well no, because at this moment in time, the human race is very much dependent on natural processes, and capitalism's wreckage of nature is going to have very real consequences, most severely in the form of global warming and its impact on the delicate balance of Earth. There's no point in talking about some distant future in which humans have truly conquered nature and cannot be touched by it. Communism is possible now, and we're trying to build it now. Until we've reached a stage at which what happens to nature is completely irrelevant to us, we're going to have to accept that a communist society must preserve nature.

Oh my god. You know, at this point I am just tired. I'm so fucking tired of seeing this. I have poured so much into this! Into addressing PRECISELY this! Read through the thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/point-no-return-t193790/index.html?highlight=nature+is+the+last+refuge+of+ the+bourgeoisie and look trhough my posts if you don't believe me.

"Well, what you're saying has no practical value cuz capitalism is threatening our existence in the here and now"

No, sorry, I've literally not only already addressed this in the thread in question, I have thoroughly gone into great detail about it several, several times in the same thread. The point of concern here is the nature of the approach itself, YES it is important as far as the implications for what it means to be a Communist in the here and now because it represents, ultimately, a pathology that is anti-Communist. AS I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS FUCKING TIMES, how we conceive nature IRREVOCABLY reflects how we conceive the sum-total of our social relations as they exist in the here and the now. The same aversion toward humans destroying nature is the same EXACT aversion towards humans "manipulating" and taking control of social processes, i.e. planning a society on a scientific level. The only reason leftists can still call themselves Communists and still hold such superstitions, is precisely because they think there is some historic guarantee that everything will work itself out in the future society: While in reality, the opposite is true - nothing will work itself out, a Communist society is responsible for itself, there is no external sense of guarantee things will work out - for a Communist society to sustain itself, it requires the collective solidarity and mass mobilization of all its constituents.

Do not tell me this has no practical implications, for NOTHING has any practical implication right now! The whole point is that we are at a deadlock wherein we need to critically reflect on what it means to be a Communist in the 21st century, and ecology has prime importance here.

Nevermind any of that however. As stated before, if the present ecological crisis is not understood on scientific terms, at the level of manipulation, then the ecological crisis can not be solved. We have reached a point of no return here - capitalism's wreckage of nature is not dangerous because nature is being wrecked, but because nature is being wrecked in such a way that has no consideration for the common welfare of all of society. Do not interpret this statement ideologically, for I mean it rather plainly - I am not saying nature is being wrecked in a "cruel" or merciless way, I am saying it is being wrecked for profit. In fact a Communist society would be even more destructive toward nature: most ecological problems are a product of the inconsistency of capitalist "manipulation" of nature - many natural processes are "left to be" while others are manipulated with no understanding of the relationship between them.

It's just this argument was addressed so many times. So many people said this. Again, it is a purely ideological statement that insinuates a sensitivity which is inherently reactionary. There will never be a distnat future wherein humans have "conquered" nature, unless humans had already previously understood that natural processes can be understood scientifically and can be manipulated to serve our ends, if with caution. I'm not even talking about some future society though. I am talking about a very pervasive pathology in the here and now which most leftists are inflicted with which has ideological implications beyond the purported "practical" implications of preserving "da nature". I am not concerned with that, I am concerned with the pathology that seeks this.


And in any case, nature is pleasant to look at and experience and it inspires many people, and I imagine communism won't change that. So even if it has stopped affecting humans in any way, this is reason enough to preserve it: human enjoyment.

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.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2846458&postcount=48

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2846474&postcount=62

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2846475&postcount=63

These are literally just a few that deal with this.

Please understand my frustration here. I would not be frustrated if this thread came out of the blue. However, this thread directly refers to the thread in question, the OP made the thread because he saw the "point of no return" one. People do not find nature pleasant for some inexplicable reason, or because they do by merit of some physiological fact. As I stated, even if it was because of some physiological fact, then the exact necessary stimuli and chemicals which provoke the "pleasantness" of nature could be artificially replaced (i.e. environments could be artificially replaced in a way that would maximize the demands of society). I brought up this hypothetical question numerous times - if every single dependency humans have upon nature could be replaced artificially, would there be a problem? If you find a problem with this, it means you haven't struggled with yourself hard enough about being a Communist - on a deep, spiritual level. It means you are still burdened with bourgeois sensitivities and perversions.

But as I already stated, numerous times in various different ways, the reason, essentially, people find nature pleasant or that it "inspires" people is because for them nature is a refuge untouched by that which reminds them of that which is alien to them on a SOCIAL level. People see nature as that which is "pure", and untouched by the modern society that is responsible for all of their sufferings and misery. The point, however, is that this is a reactionary pathology, and interestingly enough, living near Detroit - a common stereotype about many black people is that they patently do not give a shit, and do not like being around nature. If anything this encapsulates - as Trotsky observed - the progressive potential of the black working class (here I mean this not on a "racial" level but a sociological one - the American marginalized, of the ghettos, ETC.) in leading the class struggle, for they are unbound by many of the illusions that white people have merely because of the fact that they are not even blessed with the privilege of having such refuges, they are forced to deal with the brutality of the system on a direct level, such rituals literally do nothing for them (deprived of their roots, etc.).