Communists and Environment

[Clarksist]

In my eyes, being a communist mostly means being against exploitation. In all forms.

Environmental protection is very meaningful to me, because I don't believe enough communists see that pollution is exploitation of the environment and that the meat industry is exploitation of animals.

So, where do you think that we draw the line? Because obviously not every communist is a vegan or a tree hugger. While I am both of those, I'm not sure it is right to require people to be. However, when we are trying to champion a fight against oppression and exploitation, how can we be supporting other oppressive acts... it just seems like contradictions which might weaken the cause.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We draw the line when environmentalism causes harm to human beings.

[Severian]

Or, one could as easily say, when a lack of environmental protection causes harm to human beings.


In my eyes, being a communist mostly means being against exploitation. In all forms.

Environmental protection is very meaningful to me, because I don't believe enough communists see that pollution is exploitation of the environment and that the meat industry is exploitation of animals.

Well, I think you mean something very different by communism than I do, or than Marx and other historic communists have.

Communism is not about helping poor helpless suffering exploited creatures. As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class is not that is a suffering class, but that it is a revolutionary class. Capable of liberating itself, and needing to liberate all of society in order to do so...that is, out of class interest, not out of do-gooder conscience.

Liberals act out of concern for the oppression of others...which means they act weakly, or often not at all.

Revolutionaries act in resistance to their own oppression and exploitation, and resist the oppression of others in order to build solidarity and alliances in the fight. "Neither in the name of conscience/nor in the name of charity/money's put where mouths are/in the name of solidarity" as Billy Bragg puts it.

Secondarily, you seem to mean something different by exploitation by Marx did; he said that all exchange-value, i.e. market value, came from human labor. And that profit and other revenues of the exploiter came from the product of exploited labor. To speak of animals or natural resources being exploited in that sense would make a hash of all Marxist economics.

[ComradeChris]

Communism is not about helping poor helpless suffering exploited creatures. As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class is not that is a suffering class, but that it is a revolutionary class. Capable of liberating itself, and needing to liberate all of society in order to do so...that is, out of class interest, not out of do-gooder conscience.

There are other forms of communism, other than what Marx said, Engels said, etc. I'm almost to the point where I don't want to consider a communist, but just an egalitarian. People keep flashing Marxism in my face saying basically what you said, "Communism is this, not that," failing to say that it's not the only form of communism. And I'm sick of this Marxist-centric communist ideology.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:39 AM
Or, one could as easily say, when a lack of environmental protection causes harm to human beings.


In my eyes, being a communist mostly means being against exploitation. In all forms.

Environmental protection is very meaningful to me, because I don't believe enough communists see that pollution is exploitation of the environment and that the meat industry is exploitation of animals.

Well, I think you mean something very different by communism than I do, or than Marx and other historic communists have.

Communism is not about helping poor helpless suffering exploited creatures. As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class is not that is a suffering class, but that it is a revolutionary class. Capable of liberating itself, and needing to liberate all of society in order to do so...that is, out of class interest, not out of do-gooder conscience.

Liberals act out of concern for the oppression of others...which means they act weakly, or often not at all.

Revolutionaries act in resistance to their own oppression and exploitation, and resist the oppression of others in order to build solidarity and alliances in the fight. "Neither in the name of conscience/nor in the name of charity/money's put where mouths are/in the name of solidarity" as Billy Bragg puts it.

Secondarily, you seem to mean something different by exploitation by Marx did; he said that all exchange-value, i.e. market value, came from human labor. And that profit and other revenues of the exploiter came from the product of exploited labor. To speak of animals or natural resources being exploited in that sense would make a hash of all Marxist economics.
Should we, not completely unlike liberals, also fight out of the upheavel of our own but also others oppression? Saying that because athiesm is prevelant on the left does not mean the left is without morals.

I think that many on the left do not seek revolution for just themselves, but for the masses because of philanthropy, instead of self interest. In fact that is the reason I am on the left, out of philanthropy and not because of self interest.

Now, do we only act out of class-interest? Or in the interest of humanity, and beyond that, in interest of all those being exploited?


And I'm sick of this Marxist-centric communist ideology.


Agreed comrade.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:36 PM

And I'm sick of this Marxist-centric communist ideology.


Agreed comrade.
I'm with you two.
It causes more harm than it'll ever do good.

[OleMarxco]

Of course, we should keep a strong "green" underline of our new society. That will be secondary to our firstly and mainly objectives, of course, but it will not be put in the back-burner for TOO long, me sposesth.

We don't draw no line ;)

[bed_of_nails]

I support environmentalism and shall have no part in any plans to exploit it.

Without the earth, nothing can survive. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure the existance of life.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

I see environmental endangerment as being an integral part of capitalism. Insofar as I see it as such, I do not believe there can be a real hope of the environment until capitalism has been abolished. Creating profit demands an over production of goods, many of worthless consumer value, as well as a lack of proper controls on waste and pollution in the interests of cutting costs. Thus, only upon removing such elements can real improvement be made. After all, how often do capitalists turn down environmental protection under the reasoning of economic protection?

Secretly, the situation with the environment troubles me deeply on numerous aspects. However, I try not to dwell on it to much, seeing trying to bring real environmental solution under the current system as a hopeless wish. Thus, I confine myself to working towards the broader picture, destroying capitalism and rectifying the environmental situation in the process.

As for “drawing the line” on environmentalism, I don’t see why we can’t properly protect the environment without creating “harm to human beings”. We need a new system that facilitates proper resource management and energy utilization, not any form of delirious social control that would be harmful to humans.

[Clarksist]

I agree with you Sa'd al-Bari, except on the environmentalism under capitalism. If you make environmental friendly option more economical, then perhaps we can at least hell the environment now... or is that too far fetched?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:36 PM

Should we, not completely unlike liberals, also fight out of the upheavel of our own but also others oppression?
If you want to be a semi-liberal reformist, sure.

[Vanguard1917]

As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class is not that is a suffering class, but that it is a revolutionary class.

This is so important to point out. That's the difference between Marxists and liberal/'egalitarian' reformists. The latter sees the working class as pathetic, suffering passive-victims who need the charity of compassionate, altruistic middle class folk. Marxists see the working class as having the potential to be a mighty revolutionary force, a force that will completely transform society for the better and, as a result, sweep away all reactionary, backward, parasitic petit-bourgeois ideas (e.g., in my view, environmentalism). Severian, thanks for pointing that out. I'd really like to read more about what Engels said on that subject; have you, by any chance, got a source

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:26 PM

As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class is not that is a suffering class, but that it is a revolutionary class.

This is so important to point out. That's the difference between Marxists and liberal/'egalitarian' reformists. The latter sees the working class as pathetic, suffering passive-victims who need the charity of compassionate, altruistic middle class folk. Marxists see the working class as having the potential to be a mighty revolutionary force, a force that will completely transform society for the better and, as a result, sweep away all reactionary, backward, parasitic petit-bourgeois ideas (e.g., in my view, environmentalism). Severian, thanks for pointing that out. I'd really like to read more about what Engels said on that subject; have you, by any chance, got a source
Regardless they are victims. We all are under the control of people who control the means of production (especially animals, who have their lives taken without recourse). An 8 year old slave labourer in the third world isn't led to believe they have a choice except to make money (what very little it is) and support their family. I don't see anything wrong with fighting for people who can't fight for themselves. I mean I'm from a confortable home, with not to much complain about (monetary wise). If i didn't want/try to defend the exploited, I wouldn't be here to discuss this.

And I still don't see how people relate environmentallism to the bourgeois (maybe clarify on that point further please?). Corporations, factories, etc. exploit the environment only for profit. If it wasn't for environmental agencies, logging companies wouldn't have to plant more trees after chopping mass amounts down.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:08 PM
And I still don't see how people relate environmentallism to the bourgeois (maybe clarify on that point further please?). Corporations, factories, etc. exploit the environment only for profit. If it wasn't for environmental agencies, logging companies wouldn't have to plant more trees after chopping mass amounts down.
They are just trying to provide some kind of "fact" to delude themselves and others into thinking of a relationship other than the relationship of fanatical humanists to corporate capitalists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:26 AM
Severian, thanks for pointing that out. I'd really like to read more about what Engels said on that subject; have you, by any chance, got a source
It's from "The Condition of the Working Class in England."

[Clarksist]

If we fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, while fighting for ourselves, and all our comrades... then we are a much stronger force than if every individual is fighting for self-interest and not humanities interests.

I believe that we must fight for all the exploited, because otherwise we will lose a good ally, and a meaningful cause. Fighting for animals, the environment, the poor, and the working class along with anyone else who has ever been exploited we present a non-hypocritical movement. If we fight exploitation but only for ourselves, we cannot call ourselves liberators.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:38 PM
I believe that we must fight for all the exploited, because otherwise we will lose a good ally, and a meaningful cause. Fighting for animals, the environment, the poor, and the working class along with anyone else who has ever been exploited we present a non-hypocritical movement. If we fight exploitation but only for ourselves, we cannot call ourselves liberators.
Very well put comrade. I haven't heard basically what I believe summed up so well.

[Raisa]

Nah we really do need to care about the environment.

A good environment means better health and better lives of the people.

[The Z-Man]

I draw the line here:

When something is used (such as a tree) for neccessary reasons, I have no problem. But when it's used for something unnessecary, thats where I draw the line. If people need to eat chickens, and will use all the meat, thats fine. But if people kill chickens for only a small portion of the meat, thats not all right.

[romanm]

The environment affects everyone. If it is a choice between some stupid Amerikkkan labor aristorcrat's wage and the environment, I'll choose the environment every time.

There is no significant Amerikkkan proletariat (there are proletarians inside u$ borders, but they aren't Amerikkkan). So these phony communists, PIG trotskyists, and trade unionists who go around saying we have to protect a bunch of parasites and their bloated wages at the expense of the envornment are full of shit. These people are just representing the labor aristocracy/petty-bourgeoisie. I think we can agree that the environment, which has a global reach and affects the real proletariat, is more important than the PIG Amerikkkan labor aristocracy.

[Jawnnyh]

Originally posted by Sa'd al-[email protected] 3 2005, 05:11 AM
I see environmental endangerment as being an integral part of capitalism. Insofar as I see it as such, I do not believe there can be a real hope of the environment until capitalism has been abolished. Creating profit demands an over production of goods, many of worthless consumer value, as well as a lack of proper controls on waste and pollution in the interests of cutting costs. Thus, only upon removing such elements can real improvement be made. After all, how often do capitalists turn down environmental protection under the reasoning of economic protection?

Secretly, the situation with the environment troubles me deeply on numerous aspects. However, I try not to dwell on it to much, seeing trying to bring real environmental solution under the current system as a hopeless wish. Thus, I confine myself to working towards the broader picture, destroying capitalism and rectifying the environmental situation in the process.

As for “drawing the line” on environmentalism, I don’t see why we can’t properly protect the environment without creating “harm to human beings”. We need a new system that facilitates proper resource management and energy utilization, not any form of delirious social control that would be harmful to humans.
Was gonna post sumthing about that but i see u probly did it better than i wouldof. Well said man...

[romanm]

AmeriKKKans are paid too much already.

The environment affects the whole planet, including proletarians across the world. Pig Amerikkkans just want to stuff their faces with more bigmac and twinkees and sit around and whine about how they are exploited cuz they don't have big screen TV. What a bunch of filhy parasites. I'll chose the environment over a nation of archie bunkers anyday.

[Severian]

" AmeriKKKans are paid too much already."

I'm sure everyone on Wall Street agrees with you.

[rise_up]

i draw the line when...
Environmentalism is taken too far and we end up cleaning up after the multinationals.this only saves them a job.we should be stopping them.not helping them by cleaning up their mess.

[Kitbag]

I draw the line at people who disregard the environment, they're just as bad as nazi's. It's our planet, if it is not looked after then it will die. As will we. Why we shouldn't help preserve a good life for the next generation is beyond me.

[workersunity]

Environmental sustainability should be upheld in that humans do as mininal damgage to the environment while still supporting their [U]needs

[Kitbag]

Definately

[Xvall]

We draw the line when environmentalism causes harm to human beings.

I think he was asking where the line is drawn toward non-environmentalists.

Anyways, there shouldn't be much of a reson to draw any lines because even non-vegan non-treehugging communists understand that the desecration of the natural environment is a bad idea. Chances are that if anyone for some bizzare reason, thinks it is a good idea - they aren't communists.

[Kitbag]

Anyways, there shouldn't be much of a reson to draw any lines because even non-vegan non-treehugging communists understand that the desecration of the natural environment is a bad idea. Chances are that if anyone for some bizzare reason, thinks it is a good idea - they aren't communists.

Very good point.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 3 2005, 01:33 AM
Anyways, there shouldn't be much of a reson to draw any lines because even non-vegan non-treehugging communists understand that the desecration of the natural environment is a bad idea. Chances are that if anyone for some bizzare reason, thinks it is a good idea - they aren't communists.
But many Communists still don't have a good grasp of what kind of shape the environment is in. Its really bad, and yet it isn't a big issue for us.

BTW, nice avatar, is that from the movie Pi?

[Xvall]

Yeah, one of my favorite movies.

Anyways, that is true. I'm going to have to agree with whoever said that the destruction of capitalism should help rebalance the ecosystem. The majority of our problems stem from capitalistic endeavours and asinine legislation. (Hemp is not allowed to be harvested from paper in the United States, and as a result US corporations begin harvesting the rainforest instead.)

[Paradox]

Being Native American (not full-blooded though), you can understand I care deeply about the environment, and have a spiritual connection, if you will, with nature; a deep respect. Yet I realize that people have needs to be met. From what I've read and seen, I'd agree that a lot of these environmentalists don't really know what they're talking about and aren't thinking about the struggles that many people in the "Third World" face. Those people face starvation everyday, so it's understandable that they'd put their needs before the well-being of some rare plant or animal species. I've never been to a rain forest, but I hope to go to one someday (hopefully the jungles of Chiapas :ph34r: ). I think that we should protect as much of the natural land as we can, while at the same time ensuring that the needs of the world's peoples are met to the fullest. I mean, I like trees and the animals that live in them -hawks, owls, etc.- but we need wood for housing, etc.. I don't know much about alternative building materials, but perhaps that could help reduce the amount of trees we cut down, though from what I hear, the number of trees in North America is the same as it was 150 years ago (who counted them all? :huh: ). I mean, my Native American ancestors in the Pacific Northwest cut down trees and used them to make houses. Does that make them anti-environment? No. Of course not. The Zapatistas come to mind when I think about this. They have laws in their territory requiring that anyone who cuts down a tree (which must be done for a purposeful reason, e.g. building) must plant two saplings in it's place. Things like that I think would help. And people can recycle, try to use less water, cars with higher fuel mileage, hybrids, etc.. Of course things like the newer cars, the hybrids, may be out of the reach of a lot of people who don't make enough money. I also remember reading how in Arizona back in the late 90s ('96 I think) they stole part of an Apache reservation under the guise of protecting some endangered burrowing owl. Now it just so happened that the area they took to create the "protected area" had a stream running through it, which the Apache used to irrigate their crops. Now the city nearby, the name of which I forget, got to use the water from this "protected area" because they had a water shortage. Hmmm... a water shortage? I wonder if it had anything to do with the 160+ golf courses they had in the middle of a goddamn desert. And they said the Apache use of the water to irrigate their crops was "irresiponsible." Things like this, plus the pollution of the air, mercury in the water, all the garbage I see people dump on the levees of the rivers here in California, all the garbage they dump out in the desert, it's disappointing. People should care more, but the world's not exactly a logical place, so it seems. But that doesn't mean we can't change that, and that we can't meet all our needs and protect the environment at the same time. And though it's not one of the more convincing reasons, nature provides a change of scenery; a "getaway." It's nice to escape the noisy, hurried, and sometimes claustrophobic city and breathe fresh air, and relax, and say to yourself, "Wow. This is one beautiful planet." :D

[Paradox]

About those environmentalists, has anyone seen the show "Penn and Teller Bullshit" on Showtime? I was watching it lastnight and it was about this very issue. For part of the show they were at a demonstration organized by environmental groups. They interviewed one woman from some Save the Rain Forest group, who that org had chosen as their spokesperson to represent them in the interview. She couldn't articulate what the effects of global warming are, her org's stance on logging, as far as forms of logging which aren't as harmful to the environment, she couldn't even explain why she was so passionate about the environment. I don't know, maybe she was new and not good with cameras. But a lot of people they asked questions couldn't articulate either. They even played a trick on those environmentalists... they had a woman walk through the crowd with a fake petition asking people to ban Dihydrogen monoxide. The woman went up to people asking them to sign the petition and she'd say "you know, it's now found in reservoirs, rivers, the ocean," or "it causes urination," and hundreds of people, including a woman who was one of the main organizers of the demonstration, signed the petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is WATER.

[Black Dagger]

But many Communists still don't have a good grasp of what kind of shape the environment is in. Its really bad, and yet it isn't a big issue for us.

That's true, to an extent. The primary 'issue' for 'most communists' is the abolition of capitalism and the building of a communist society. Surely the best way to 'help' the environment is to abolish capitalism.

[Kitbag]

Hmm. Debatable. It's a good point, but we've still got to do our bit...

[codyvo]

I agree with you clarksist. I think that enviromentalism should be one of the key priorities of communists and the revolution. I also agree that meat eating is exploitation of animals and I have been a vegetarian for a few weeks now.

Plus, the eco-anarchist flag just kicks ass.

[Kitbag]

Vegetarianism makes me laugh, no offence, but it's nature and it's the food chain. Fair enough if it was because the animals weren't killed humanely but they aren't! One could argue how would we like it if some massive super-intelligent thing killed a load of humans and ate them, which is a fair point but, come on, we need protein just as much as they would. It's nature.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:54 PM
Vegetarianism makes me laugh, no offence, but it's nature and it's the food chain. Fair enough if it was because the animals weren't killed humanely but they aren't! One could argue how would we like it if some massive super-intelligent thing killed a load of humans and ate them, which is a fair point but, come on, we need protein just as much as they would. It's nature.
you can get protein from sources other than the flesh of another being. vegetarianism is just a personal choice for me... but i think eatting meat is disgusting in all honesty.

[Kitbag]

Well that's fair enough then, I suppose it's just a preference.

[MJM]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:50 AM
About those environmentalists, has anyone seen the show "Penn and Teller Bullshit" on Showtime? I was watching it lastnight and it was about this very issue. For part of the show they were at a demonstration organized by environmental groups. They interviewed one woman from some Save the Rain Forest group, who that org had chosen as their spokesperson to represent them in the interview. She couldn't articulate what the effects of global warming are, her org's stance on logging, as far as forms of logging which aren't as harmful to the environment, she couldn't even explain why she was so passionate about the environment. I don't know, maybe she was new and not good with cameras. But a lot of people they asked questions couldn't articulate either. They even played a trick on those environmentalists... they had a woman walk through the crowd with a fake petition asking people to ban Dihydrogen monoxide. The woman went up to people asking them to sign the petition and she'd say "you know, it's now found in reservoirs, rivers, the ocean," or "it causes urination," and hundreds of people, including a woman who was one of the main organizers of the demonstration, signed the petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is WATER.
Well its easy to edit someone and place it into a TV show and make them look stupid. Thats Penn and Tellers Modus Operandi isn't it? Do they do that with right wingers? If not it would show their politics, if they do it shows they're just inane frat boys who think they're smarter than everyone else. Peope at home probably laugh to themselves and say they would never get fooled - they would.

Rain Forests and Climate Change really are 2 related but different issues in the environmental movement. They're linked of course but CO2 is the real problem with Climate change whereas illegal logging is the real problem with deforestation.

I think there should be a distintion made between "conservationists" - people who want to save the cute animals and blame poor people for cutting down trees. And "environmentalist" - people who work to stop toxic pollution being released into the water supply in Thailand, or have toxic waste sent to India to be "reprocessed", or work to stop corporations stealing Mahogony from Brasil.

Prince Charles is an example of the first and I would like to distance myself from that prick :)

[which doctor]

We must be in harmony with the environment. We must produce neither a negative nor positive effect on it. We must be self sufficient. Taking only what we can put back.

[zendo]

Hey Clrakyst

Hey Comrade I myself am a vegetarian and have a great deal of respect for animals.

Concerning Communism and the environment and Communism and Animal Rights I can definetely assure you that Capitalism is based on greed and profit without the slightest concern for the environment or animal rights.

Communist world would be much more forgiving to the environment, since it would be based on necessity and not on corporate greed.

The same can be said for animal welfare.

Regarding the exploitation and inhumane treatment of animals I shall quote the great Pythagoras:

"As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love" (excerpt from the book The extended circle, by Jon Wynne-Tyson).

[romanm]

Only communist revolution can save the planet.

If you want to save the planet, better start reading Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[Xvall]

"Saving the Planet" can only be brought about by the complete extinction of the human race, which will eventually happen one way or another. "Communist Revolution" isn't likely to preserve the bio-diversity of the planet, though I'm sure it would help.


If you want to save the planet, better start reading Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

What if I don't want to save the planet? What if I want everything to die?

[pedro san pedro]

What if I don't want to save the planet? What if I want everything to die?

someone sounds hung over......