Primitivist

[Vanguard1917]

Is a primitivist merely someone who self-identifies as a primitivist? In other words, is a person a primitivist only if he or she calls him or herself a primitivist?

For me, a primitivist is any person who rejects modern society in favour of pre-modern ways of living.

These are some of the key characteristics of people who follow primitivist doctrines: they are against industrialisation - i.e. a central feature of modern societies; they are against urbanisation; they romanticise rural societies; they're hostile to increased human presence on earth; they usually see human beings as having a parasitic effect on the planet; they are more than often proponents of some kind of alternative diet ('veganism', etc.); they think that their dietary choice (as well as all their other lifestyle choices) will help change the world, thus they preach the virtues of their way of living to everyone else; they are often keen advocates of animal rights (anti-vivisection, anti-factory farms, etc.); they are often strongly misanthropic; they are often strongly moralistic in their politics; they are almost always Western and middle class.

Most importantly, they are, in effect, extremely hostile opponents of modern communism - a society which depends on a massive development of humanity's productive forces in order to exist as a practical, living reality. They would see this kind of society as 'unsustainable'.

Should we be more active in confronting the primitivists?

[bcbm]

A person who regrets medical and agricultural progress because they caused 'drastic' overpopulation is someone who, in my book, is a semi-psychopath, nevermind being a reactionary.

How is it reactionary to recognize that agriculture and industrialism were some of the worst things to happen to humanity and especially to the lower-classes therein? Recognizing the effect of something is different than wanting to undo it.


Most importantly, they are, in effect, extremely hostile opponents of modern communism - a society which depends on a massive development of humanity's productive forces in order to exist as a practical, living reality.

Your definition doesn&#39;t exactly strike me as objective... <_<

In any case, your description of primitivists seems a bit off to me. The primitivist and animal rights scenes generally do not have a ton of overlap, as many primmies are proponents of a gatherer-hunter lifestyle, something that conflicts with AR people&#39;s ideas for obvious reasons. They also wouldn&#39;t romanticize rural societies, again for obvious reasons. The misanthropic bit is more or less accurate, although I&#39;d say some of them don&#39;t so much hate humans as view our dominance as disruptive of a natural balance.


But &#39;ichnemon&#39; is not the only person on this site with these beliefs. He is merely one extreme. There are a number of members on this site who share much of ichnemon&#39;s anti-modernist prejudices.

For instance...?

[Dimentio]

Uhm... worst thing? Yes, it is a bad thing for biodiversity and environment, but not for the human being. To ignore that the production capacity today have increased several hundred times and allowed for an increase in life-standards is simply to be an ignoramus of all technological development on earth and it&#39;s connection to our physical comfortability.

What is best, 16 hours of work in an agricultural society where scarcity is prevalent, or 8 hours a day of work in an industrialist welfare society. Of course, the society today is not optimal and we must reconstruct our entire infrastructure, but not by going back one millennia.

:angry:

[bcbm]

Uhm... worst thing? Yes, it is a bad thing for biodiversity and environment, but not for the human being.

No? Industrialization was pretty miserable for the vast majority of humans who had a hand in getting it off the ground. The early unions had to try pretty hard to convince industrial workers to actually accept factory labor, and for good reason.


To ignore that the production capacity today have increased several hundred times and allowed for an increase in life-standards is simply to be an ignoramus of all technological development on earth and it&#39;s connection to our physical comfortability.

Today some of us may enjoy relative comfort thanks to industrial efforts, but let&#39;s not kid ourselves, those efforts were built on the sweat and blood (mostly blood) of millions, if not more and today are sustained by the further sufferings of millions more.


What is best, 16 hours of work in an agricultural society where scarcity is prevalent, or 8 hours a day of work in an industrialist welfare society.

False dichotomy. Agricultural society certainly had its perils, although many were tied to the organization of society at that time (as today&#33;), but to suggest that it was uniformly worse than industrial society is just plain false. During the initial shift from agriculture to industry many resisted (the Luddites, etc) because they recognized the swindle. Agricultural labor may have been tedious, but many preferred that and the cottage system of industry as it afforded them a great deal more leisure and freedom, not to mention instant bargaining chips- they could always destroy the machines. Early industrial labor was simply the ruling classes asserting greater control over the under classes and using them to make more money and gain more power. Today that has shifted, with some nations enjoying more benefits, but the basic set-up is still the same with others doing the dirty work of keeping everything afloat.

Obviously we cannot "go back," nor am I suggesting such a thing as possible or desirable, but I am not for the whitewashing of history and the painting of events harmful to lots of under-class people as "progressive" or, worse, "necessary."

[Dimentio]

1. One reason why people back in 1840 Europe accepted factory labour was that agricultural labour was harder and less rewarding. The same accounts for industrial labour in the third world.

2. The amount of energy which our machinery could generate today could probably give us a life without so much hard work at all, the only thing being in the way is the unnecessary process of the price system.

3. Energy effectivisation allowed for by hydrophonic farming and closed artificial eco-systems could help to rebuild the biosphere.

What do you prefer, a post-capitalist society where everyone is toiling in the mud and where we are working for small scraps to each-other and could generate as much energy as during medieval times, or a post-capitalist society where we are living a life in highest possible prosperity?

Harmful to the underclass? The underclass had it much, much worse in material conditions during the dark age. According to the thermodynamic interpretation of social phenomena, the amount of energy a society could use have a significant impact on it&#39;s ability to provide it&#39;s citizens with food.

During the 5th and 6th centuries, the people of the anarcho-agricultural system in Southern France largely voluntarily accepted to let Germanic warlords protect them from other Germanic warlords, so that they had&#39;nt to focus on defending themselves, but on survival.

[bcbm]

What do you prefer, a post-capitalist society where everyone is toiling in the mud and where we are working for small scraps to each-other and could generate as much energy as during medieval times, or a post-capitalist society where we are living a life in highest possible prosperity?

Let me repeat myself and make this perfectly fucking clear:

Obviously we cannot "go back," nor am I suggesting such a thing as possible or desirable, but I am not for the whitewashing of history and the painting of events harmful to lots of under-class people as "progressive" or, worse, "necessary."

I do not want a return to an agricultural or gatherer-hunter society. Get it?


One reason why people back in 1840 Europe accepted factory labour was that agricultural labour was harder and less rewarding. The same accounts for industrial labour in the third world.

Factory labor was not readily accepted in all quarters though and it was often only accepted because the under-classes had been forced from agricultural settlements and in to the cities to work in the factories. Industrialization was first and foremost about making money and controlling the under-classes.


2. The amount of energy which our machinery could generate today could probably give us a life without so much hard work at all, the only thing being in the way is the unnecessary process of the price system.

3. Energy effectivisation allowed for by hydrophonic farming and closed artificial eco-systems could help to rebuild the biosphere.

I didn&#39;t mention any of that stuff, so I am not sure what the hell you are responding to.


Harmful to the underclass? The underclass had it much, much worse in material conditions during the dark age.

The middle ages varied a great deal, actually. Things were certainly much worse during the Little Ice Age, which unfortunately dominated the period, but during the Medieval Warm Period the weather was mild and agriculture was a rewarding task, with great output due to an extended growing season and good climates over a wider range. The various plagues and what not were obviously shit (though primarily a sanitation problem) and the domination by monarchs, lords and clergy were shit as well, but things were not entirely horrible. I would say that things sucked about equally for the worse off during the medieval period and the industrial period.

[Dimentio]

Necessary compared to what? To continuing crawling in the mud

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:24 am
Necessary compared to what? To continuing crawling in the mud
:rolleyes: Medieval life was not depicted with total accuracy in Monty Python.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+January 13, 2007 10:33 am--> (black coffee black metal @ January 13, 2007 10:33 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 04:24 am
Necessary compared to what? To continuing crawling in the mud
:rolleyes: Medieval life was not depicted with total accuracy in Monty Python. [/b]
Medieval life had much, much more narrow margins.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 13, 2007 04:57 am--> (Serpent @ January 13, 2007 04:57 am)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 10:33 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 04:24 am
Necessary compared to what? To continuing crawling in the mud
:rolleyes: Medieval life was not depicted with total accuracy in Monty Python.
Medieval life had much, much more narrow margins. [/b]
Narrow margins? I don&#39;t understand your meaning.

[Vanguard1917]

How is it reactionary to recognize that agriculture and industrialism were some of the worst things to happen to humanity and especially to the lower-classes therein? Recognizing the effect of something is different than wanting to undo it.

Industrialisation is the single greatest historical achievement of humanity to date.

Industrialisation has vastly improved human life on earth (if you deny this, please go and shoot yourself in the head right now) and it has brought about a means through which real human liberation can become a living reality. It has created the material conditions necessary for overcoming class society. It is responsible for the creation of the industrial proletariat - i.e. the revolutionary subject of history responsible for bringing about communist society.

You cannot be a communist and an opponent of industrialisation. Communists are the most enthusiastic advocates of industrial and agricultural progress. This is because we are the most enthusiastic supporters of genuine human emancipation - i.e. human emancipation from material scarcity.

Marx and Engels put this across brilliantly:

&#39;...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food, drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. &#39;Liberation&#39; is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...&#39;


In any case, your description of primitivists seems a bit off to me. The primitivist and animal rights scenes generally do not have a ton of overlap, as many primmies are proponents of a gatherer-hunter lifestyle, something that conflicts with AR people&#39;s ideas for obvious reasons.

OK, but i&#39;m not really interested in the &#39;primitivist scene&#39;. If this was just about a few handfuls of obscure people who call themselves &#39;primitivists&#39; we wouldn&#39;t bother wasting our time discussing it.

But it&#39;s not about them. Anti-industrial, anti-modern ideas are becoming more and more mainstream. Communists have a duty to oppose these reactionary ideas where ever they are to be found.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
For me, a primitivist is any person who rejects modern society in favour of pre-modern ways of living.

Really? I don&#39;t know about you, but I rather think that "modern society," characterized by capitalism, hierarchy, sexism, racism, and inequality sucks pretty hard.

You&#39;re view is so disgustingly Eurocentric that it&#39;s difficult to even discuss. There is an awful lot we can learn from primitive societies. That doesn&#39;t require us to go back and live like "savages" (Real primmies are pretty Eurocentric, too). For me, I&#39;m very interested in how some tribal societies developed mechanisms to prevent power from consolidating into institutional heirarchy, ie the notion of the "counter-power".

If "communists" only look to industrial society to find ideas for the future, then you&#39;re missing out on the big picture. There&#39;s an awful lot of history that&#39;s been bulldozed by European and imperialist values. Perhaps there&#39;s something worthwhile. Maybe there is something that can be learned from people whose last names aren&#39;t German or English.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 09:47 am
During the initial shift from agriculture to industry many resisted (the Luddites, etc) because they recognized the swindle.

Uh, the Luddites were a class movement that didn&#39;t resist that particular "swindle" -- they resisted unemployment. That is, they broke the machines that would leave them on the proverbial scrapheap and not just any old machine.

The whole anti-modernisation angle, is a modern myth.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+January 13, 2007 06:36 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ January 13, 2007 06:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:57 am

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 10:33 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 04:24 am
Necessary compared to what? To continuing crawling in the mud
:rolleyes: Medieval life was not depicted with total accuracy in Monty Python.
Medieval life had much, much more narrow margins.
Narrow margins? I don&#39;t understand your meaning. [/b]
Could&#39;nt you all who call industrialism and modernity a terrible atrocity [terrible atrocities were done in it&#39;s name, but were also done earlier for the same economic arguments] explain how we would be able to achieve any society with a high standard of life without the ability to generate an abundance?

[Sentinel]

I agree largely with Vanguard1917 here, especially on primitivism characterically being a moralistic, puritanic, emotional, misanthropic and religion-oid paradigm which typically romanticises human suffering. Often these people say right out that suffering is a necessary part of life, implying that trying to minimise it is somehow wrong or arrogant in itself. Quite like monks of various religions they strive for a simple, &#39;pure&#39; and &#39;virtuous&#39; life, and are convinced that forcing humanity into living that kind of lives, is the only way to &#39;save earth&#39;.

Also, very often indeed the primmies don&#39;t use that name of themselves. I&#39;m not certain to what degree that is a real world phenomenon or merely a result of our guidelines; I do get the feeling that we have quite a few users who when directly asked say that they aren&#39;t against &#39;all&#39; technology, but otherwise use every opportunity to slander the smallest sign of progress relentlessly -- a little suspicious indeed.

But unfortunately, I can&#39;t see what we can do more than we do now, restrict the open and obvious ones? What do you propose?


Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)Should we be more active in confronting the primitivists?[/b]

I&#39;m strongly in favor of confronting them whenever possible -- they aren&#39;t striving for the same society the revolutionary left is at all, and are frankly enemies of mankind.


black coffee black metal
Today some of us may enjoy relative comfort thanks to industrial efforts, but let&#39;s not kid ourselves, those efforts were built on the sweat and blood (mostly blood) of millions, if not more and today are sustained by the further sufferings of millions more.

Bbbg, why are we debating this again, is someone denying our history or arguing that early agriculture and industrialial age weren&#39;t a huge pain in the ass for poor people? Haven&#39;t we both agreed in previous discussions, and don&#39;t you admit right here that the society of today in the developed countries is superior to the pre-industrial one, that life is currently constantly getting better for the ruling class, and would so for everyone with capitalism overthrown, and class society removed? So how are the horrors of feudalist agriculture and early industrial society really relevant anymore?

This is about our modern tech level and further, continued development which the primmies oppose, vs. the pre-industrial one. Somehow I feel it is just some weird principle that makes you constantly bring these things up, comrade.

The painful development was progressive, and necessary, as in it brought us to where we are now. But obviously we as communists can never strive to repeat that chain of events exactly like it happened, like the capitalists did it, in other parts of the world. We would rather strive for the developed countries to reach out a hand of solidarity to the underdeveloped ones and help them to catch up to technological level without the outrageous exploitation and misery that once brought us here.

So what&#39;s the problem? :unsure:

[Dimentio]

Good post, Sentinel. I agree that primitivists should be countered.

On the other hand, som strays of paleolithic society, especially the social nearness and the semi-egalitarianism inherent there are very interesting phenomena and we should study how we could create a society with no authoritarian control of human beings.

[Vanguard1917]

Really? I don&#39;t know about you, but I rather think that "modern society," characterized by capitalism, hierarchy, sexism, racism, and inequality sucks pretty hard.

And there is a pre-modern (or non-modern) alternative to the evils of modern society?


You&#39;re view is so disgustingly Eurocentric that it&#39;s difficult to even discuss.

There is nothing Eurocentric in my views.

However, it is true that Europe was - by mere geographical accident - at the forefront of progress in the modern era (let&#39;s say from 1600 onwards). It was Europe that witnessed the first anti-feudalist revolutions, and it was in Europe that the industrial revolution took place. Like the Communist Manifesto says, the European bourgeoisie &#39;achieved wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aquaducts and Gothic cathedrals&#39;. The point for revolutionaries is not to deny these achievements, but to reclaim them for all of humanity.


If "communists" only look to industrial society to find ideas for the future, then you&#39;re missing out on the big picture.

The achievements of the modern era are far greater than the achievements of any pre-modern &#39;civilisation&#39;.

The fact that some (albeit tiny) sections of humanity are still living as they did thousands of years ago, in tribes, hunting for survival, dependent on witch doctors for medicine, with little control over their natural environment, naked, uneducated and with little contact with civilisation, etc. - the fact that these human beings are living in such a degraded condition today, in the 21st century, should be seen by us as an atrocity.

Instead, however, people like you romanticise their degradation. They even look to their utterly backward &#39;way of life&#39; as a means to find inspiration for humanity in the 21st century&#33; Is that really the best that we - so-called progressives - can do?

Sentinel:

But unfortunately, I can&#39;t see what we can do more than we do now, restrict the open and obvious ones? What do you propose?

I just propose that we should be more active in debating those who hold primitivist views, whether they call themselves primitivists or not.

I think that you&#39;re doing a good job in the Environment forum already. I&#39;d hate to imagine the kind of reaction that would be allowed breed in there unchecked if one of our resident primitivists was moderating it.

[Dimentio]

Not to be nitpicky, but until year 1800 or so, China&#39;s economy surpassed Europe&#39;s, and the same could be accounted for Chinese culture. China had one third of the world economy. The only real problem was the Manchurian occupation [aka the Qing dynasty].

[bcbm]

Industrialisation is the single greatest historical achievement of humanity to date.

I suspect there isn&#39;t any objective measure for this, but no matter. I&#39;m not interested in discussing whether it was or not.


Industrialisation has vastly improved human life on earth (if you deny this, please go and shoot yourself in the head right now)

Don&#39;t be stupid. Industrialization has improved life for some and made it absolutely miserable for many more. Perhaps eventually it will become more equalized, but right now it has hardly been an "across the board" improvement; westerners have benefited much greater than others.


and it has brought about a means through which real human liberation can become a living reality.

We&#39;ve always had the means for liberation.


It has created the material conditions necessary for overcoming class society. It is responsible for the creation of the industrial proletariat - i.e. the revolutionary subject of history responsible for bringing about communist society.

You should find a napkin, you&#39;ve still got some Marx dripping from your face. I&#39;m not a proponent of historical determinism as you seem to be... maybe the "industrial proletariat" will be crucial in destroying society, maybe not. I think we could have just as easily liberated ourselves before industrialization, and various elements, primarily lumpen-proletarians, may become important in the postindustrial countries- only time will tell.


You cannot be a communist and an opponent of industrialisation. Communists are the most enthusiastic advocates of industrial and agricultural progress. This is because we are the most enthusiastic supporters of genuine human emancipation - i.e. human emancipation from material scarcity.

Who&#39;s being an opponent of anything?


OK, but i&#39;m not really interested in the &#39;primitivist scene&#39;. If this was just about a few handfuls of obscure people who call themselves &#39;primitivists&#39; we wouldn&#39;t bother wasting our time discussing it.

Uh, you&#39;re talking shit on primitivists and I was pointing out that your definition was incorrect. You are interested in that scene; combating it more specifically.


But it&#39;s not about them. Anti-industrial, anti-modern ideas are becoming more and more mainstream. Communists have a duty to oppose these reactionary ideas where ever they are to be found.

Are ideas that have historically been more useful to the bosses and their control over our lives reactionary?

And, in any case, such ideas have always been on the edge of the mainstream. The Romantic movement?

-----


Uh, the Luddites were a class movement that didn&#39;t resist that particular "swindle" -- they resisted unemployment. That is, they broke the machines that would leave them on the proverbial scrapheap and not just any old machine.

Quite right, though I think you narrow them a great deal. They were necessarily opposed to the emerging free trade economic system and opposed to the implementation of unskilled labor.


The whole anti-modernisation angle, is a modern myth.

How do you mean? My reading of history suggests that factory labor was not readily accepted and required a great effort on the part of the bosses and the unions to reign workers in and get them on board for the industrial process.

-----


Bbbg,

bcbm&#33;


why are we debating this again, is someone denying our history or arguing that early agriculture and industrialial age weren&#39;t a huge pain in the ass for poor people?

If you examine the poster and thread that inspired this one, you&#39;ll perhaps see where I am coming from? Vanguard is suggesting this person is a primitivist for asserting basically the same things I am, and I think that is pretty absurd, especially when that individual outlines their beliefs and they are clearly not primitivist. That&#39;s all.


So how are the horrors of feudalist agriculture and early industrial society really relevant anymore?

They still exist in some areas? And the latter seems to strike a blow against the "industrialization was fucking awesome, period" school of thought.


Somehow I feel it is just some weird principle that makes you constantly bring these things up, comrade.

Well, I do have a problem with the conception of "progress" that is prevalent among so many on here and elsewhere and worse, the complete lack of critical thought towards it by its champions and I sometimes feel the need to challenge those assumptions and ideas when they arise.


The painful development was progressive, and necessary, as in it brought us to where we are now.

I don&#39;t see why it was necessary in an absolute sense, and while it may seem progressive now, I don&#39;t think it had to turn out that way.

------


Could&#39;nt you all who call industrialism and modernity a terrible atrocity [terrible atrocities were done in it&#39;s name, but were also done earlier for the same economic arguments] explain how we would be able to achieve any society with a high standard of life without the ability to generate an abundance?

Depends on the type of society you want, ultimately.

------


he fact that some (albeit tiny) sections of humanity are still living as they did thousands of years ago, in tribes, hunting for survival, dependent on witch doctors for medicine, with little control over their natural environment, naked, uneducated and with little contact with civilisation, etc. - the fact that these human beings are living in such a degraded condition today, in the 21st century, should be seen by us as an atrocity.

Even if they choose to live such a lifestyle? Not everybody is dying to jump on board the "modern" bandwagon, although its capitalist proponents certainly do a lot to make life harder for those that resist. I should hope its communist proponents should avoid that pitfall...


I&#39;d hate to imagine the kind of reaction that would be allowed breed in there unchecked if one of our resident primitivists was moderating it.

Like who?

[Vanguard1917]

I suspect there isn&#39;t any objective measure for this, but no matter.

If you&#39;re a historical materialist, then there is.


Don&#39;t be stupid. Industrialization has improved life for some and made it absolutely miserable for many more.

Industrialisation itself is not to blame; capitalist relations are. Nonetheless, capitalist industrialisation is better than no industrialisation. The very problem with capitalism is that it does not give way to enough industrial growth. That&#39;s why communist want to smash capitalist relations of production: because they are fetters on the development of the productive forces of society.


We&#39;ve always had the means for liberation.

In what sense?


I think we could have just as easily liberated ourselves before industrialization

I&#39;d really recommend that you read and try to understand some Marxist theory. That&#39;s a wildly utopian statement.


Who&#39;s being an opponent of anything?

So you recognise the vital importance of industrial progress? Good.


Uh, you&#39;re talking shit on primitivists and I was pointing out that your definition was incorrect. You are interested in that scene; combating it more specifically.

No, i really am not interested in the primitivist scene. Because by &#39;primitivist&#39; i&#39;m not actually referring to a few handfuls of eccentrics and oddballs that go around calling themselves &#39;primitivists&#39;. They&#39;re harmless, and &#39;combating&#39; them is pointless.

I&#39;m interested in actual primitivist trends in mainstream society. Such as the rise of the Green movement in the last 20 or so years. Such as a New Labour government that subsidises backward and inefficient food production (the &#39;organic&#39; industry) in order to please middle class &#39;ethical consumers&#39;. Such as the fact that Green opponents of economic growth can mobilise 20,000 people to march through the streets of London. Or such as the fact that pretty much the entire left in Britain - including groups that call themselves Marxists - has opportunistically capitulated to Green ideology. And so on an so forth. The point is, it has nothing to do with self-described &#39;primitivists&#39;, who are insignificant and thus unworthy of our attention.

[Dimentio]

It is completely crazy to think that the standard of life could have improved so much without the ascension of modern technology. The energy generation was so extremely low in pre-industrial society so that most people were objectively put under poverty no matter if there was a ruling class or not.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:48 am
If you&#39;re a historical materialist, then there is.
Then I am probably not one.


Industrialisation itself is not to blame; capitalist relations are. Nonetheless, capitalist industrialisation is better than no industrialisation.

I think that very much depends.


The very problem with capitalism is that it does not give way to enough industrial growth. That&#39;s why communist want to smash capitalist relations of production: because they are fetters on the development of the productive forces of society.

The capitalists have always seemed pretty enthusiastic about the industrial project to me, and they certainly stand to gain a great deal from that position. I was under the impression we wanted to destroy them because, uh, they make our lives miserable


In what sense?

With sufficient numbers past members of the under-class could&#39;ve thrown off the upper-classes just as well as those of us around today, if not with more ease.


I&#39;d really recommend that you read and try to understand some Marxist theory. That&#39;s a wildly utopian statement.

I&#39;ve read and understood Marx, but that doesn&#39;t mean I agree with everything he ever wrote. I don&#39;t see anything utopian in the idea that the under-classes could self-organize themselves then, or now.


So you recognise the vital importance of industrial progress?

Not really. I&#39;m pretty indifferent on the matter. Some aspects certainly need to be globalized, but as a whole... meh.


I&#39;m interested in actual primitivist trends in mainstream society. Such as the rise of the Green movement in the last 20 or so years.

Perhaps you should&#39;ve made it clear from the get-go that when you said "primitivism" you actually meant things totally unrelated to primitivism? <_<

[YSR]

I&#39;m interested in actual primitivist trends in mainstream society. Such as the rise of the Green movement in the last 20 or so years. Such as a New Labour government that subsidises backward and inefficient food production (the &#39;organic&#39; industry) in order to please middle class &#39;ethical consumers&#39;. Such as the fact that Green opponents of economic growth can mobilise 20,000 people to march through the streets of London. Or such as the fact that pretty much the entire left in Britain - including groups that call themselves Marxists - has opportunistically capitulated to Green ideology. And so on an so forth. The point is, it has nothing to do with self-described &#39;primitivists&#39;, who are insignificant and thus unworthy of our attention.

Okay, I must have missed the part where you realized that unless we find better ways of managing our resources we will likely destroy a great deal of life on this planet, up to and including ourselves.

This absurd indictment of everything "Green" has about as much to do with "primitivism" as this thread does with "making sense". Your fetishism of progress without regard to sustainability is, as you thankfully acknowledge, a belief held by a tiny fraction of the Left. And let&#39;s keep it that way.

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? Are you trying to find ways of restricting anyone on this website who cares a lick for the environment?

[rouchambeau]

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? Are you trying to find ways of restricting anyone on this website who cares a lick for the environment?

The environment is sooooo bourgeois.

[Vanguard1917]

Then I am probably not one.

The way things stand, you&#39;re definately not one.


The capitalists have always seemed pretty enthusiastic about the industrial project to me, and they certainly stand to gain a great deal from that position.

The capitalists only support an industrial project if they are likely to make a profit from that industrial project.


I was under the impression we wanted to destroy them because, uh, they make our lives miserable

The number one cause of humanity&#39;s misery is, and always has been, material scarcity. All of the other ills of society stem from this source. Marxists have always understood this. And so have, i don&#39;t mind admitting, many anarchists.

The productive forces of society need to develop enormously in order for humanity to overcome the historic problem of material scarcity once and for all. Capitalist relations of production stand in the way of this development and therefore need to be smashed.

At a time when masses of human beings live in poverty and degradation, the Green opposition to economic growth is criminal. It isn&#39;t leftwing; it&#39;s outright Western middle class reaction. The sooner we all realise this the better.


I&#39;ve read and understood Marx, but that doesn&#39;t mean I agree with everything he ever wrote.

You haven&#39;t understood Marx. A person who carries on talking so much nonsense upon hearing so much sense has not understood much of the latter.


Not really. I&#39;m pretty indifferent on the matter. Some aspects certainly need to be globalized, but as a whole... meh.

If you&#39;re indifferent to industrialisation, you&#39;re indifferent to human hunger, disease and degradation. It&#39;s that simple; why do you refuse to understand this?

We need mass and rapid industrialisation throughout the human world to end human poverty once and for all.

Young Stupid Radical:

Your fetishism of progress without regard to sustainability is, as you thankfully acknowledge, a belief held by a tiny fraction of the Left.

Dear me, this just gets worse and worse.

A &#39;fetishism of progress without regard to sustainability&#39;. Is that Greenspeak for saying &#39;any industry that releases carbon emissions is an industry to be opposed&#39;?

And the reason that pretty much all of the left has opportunistically embraced environmentalism is due to the political bankruptcy of the left. It&#39;s desperately looking to wherever it can to find a &#39;social movement&#39; to tail behind. But there&#39;s not a single thing progressive about this Western, middle class movement.

It&#39;s not entirely different from leftists joing a neo-nazi march because we shouldn&#39;t make a &#39;fetishism&#39; of anti-racism. Or being against immigrant labour because we shouldn&#39;t make a &#39;fetish&#39; of internationalism and working class solidarity. Or supporting bourgeois censorship because we shouldn&#39;t make a &#39;fetish&#39; of free speech.

None of those are fetishes - but they are all fundamental communist principles. Supporting industrial development is key among them.

[rouchambeau]

It&#39;s official: Vanguard1917 is a tool for the Green Scare.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:48 am
The way things stand, you&#39;re definately not one.
Oh woe is me&#33;



The capitalists only support an industrial project if they are likely to make a profit from that industrial project.

Fair enough, but the way things stand they stand to make a lot of profit from unhindered industrial development.


The number one cause of humanity&#39;s misery is, and always has been, material scarcity. All of the other ills of society stem from this source.

I don&#39;t know about all other ills.


The productive forces of society need to develop enormously in order for humanity to overcome the historic problem of material scarcity once and for all. Capitalist relations of production stand in the way of this development and therefore need to be smashed.

I think we have the resources now, and had them in the past, to make things equitable for all people. The problem has been who controls everything and how they distribute it, not a lack of necessary resources and materials. I also feel that entirely overcoming "material scarcity" would be an impossibility on a planet of finite resources.


At a time when masses of human beings live in poverty and degradation, the Green opposition to economic growth is criminal. It isn&#39;t leftwing; it&#39;s outright Western middle class reaction. The sooner we all realise this the better.

Well, if you make significant portions of the planet unlivable and unworkable for humans or otherwise, you aren&#39;t going to be advancing your goals very well. We still need to live here and that means taking some measures to not destroy it too thoroughly. We can survive without having to damage the environment and that will be much easier in an anti-capitalist society.


You haven&#39;t understood Marx. A person who carries on talking so much nonsense upon hearing so much sense has not understood much of the latter.


:rolleyes: A bit dogmatic today, aren&#39;t we?



If you&#39;re indifferent to industrialisation, you&#39;re indifferent to human hunger, disease and degradation. It&#39;s that simple; why do you refuse to understand this?

Because it isn&#39;t that simple. Human hunger, disease and degradation are caused by our current economic and political structures, not a lack of industrialization.


It&#39;s official: Vanguard1917 is a tool for the Green Scare.

No doubt. When you are talking the same game as the bosses, maybe there is a problem...

[Vanguard1917]

Fair enough, but the way things stand they stand to make a lot of profit from unhindered industrial development.

What&#39;s your point? This is capitalist society and industrialisation only happens if it makes money for the capitalists. That&#39;s exactly what is wrong with the capitalist system - it gives way to limited and uneven industrial development wherever investment is not profitable. Putting profit before people means underdevelopment for a mass of the world&#39;s population, who are made to depend on the production of primary goods, and made to rely on the rich countries for their consumption needs.

We want to put an end to this. But we want to put an end to it precisely because we want to create the conditions for a global economic development that is a lot more even and a lot less limited. We believe that in the 21st century no one should have to live in underdeveloped conditions.

The Western middle class &#39;anti-capitalists&#39; and &#39;anti-globalists&#39; who &#39;hate capitalism&#39; for all the wrong reasons are not, and never have been, friends of communists. Our tradition has nothing in common with them.

I have more in common with the capitalist who at least pays lip-service to the virtues of economic growth, then i do with the &#39;anti-capitalist&#39; Green who wants humanity to produce less and consume less. And that&#39;s saying something...


I don&#39;t know about all other ills.

I think you&#39;re right - perhaps not quite all of the ills of society come down to material scarcity. After all, middle class Greens overwhelmingly live in conditions of material abundance.


I think we have the resources now, and had them in the past, to make things equitable for all people. The problem has been who controls everything and how they distribute it, not a lack of necessary resources and materials. I also feel that entirely overcoming "material scarcity" would be an impossibility on a planet of finite resources.

A consciously planned, socialist distribution would undoubtedly increase standards of living on its own. But no where near to the extent that is required. For 6 billion+ people to benefit from all the resources that the 21st century has to offer, we need an enormous increase in development. And for humanity to keep on moving forward, on earth and one day beyond, we need continual development.

If human history has taught us anything, it&#39;s that there&#39;s no limit to what human beings can achieve. Humanity finally has the opportunity to smash the conditions that have hitherto restrained its enormous productive and creative capacities.


Because it isn&#39;t that simple. Human hunger, disease and degradation are caused by our current economic and political structures, not a lack of industrialization.

And the problem with those structures is essentially that they restrict humanity&#39;s realisation of its true productive capabilities. And if material scarcity is the primary cause of human misery, those structures need to be smashed in order to unleash humanity&#39;s productive potential.


No doubt. When you are talking the same game as the bosses, maybe there is a problem...

Green ideology and today&#39;s stagnant global capitalism are inseparably interlinked - they&#39;re two sides of the same coin. The former is merely an ideological expression of the latter; i.e. Green ideology is an articulation of capitalist decay and that is why it is now part of official bourgeois ideology. Green ideology legitimates the extremely sluggish nature of today&#39;s global capitalism. Therefore, the Green movement is a friend of the bosses.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
Green ideology and today&#39;s stagnant global capitalism are inseparably interlinked - they&#39;re two sides of the same coin.

Are you aware that the Green movement in Europe came directly out of the Autonomous Marxist movement?


I&#39;d really recommend that you read and try to understand some Marxist theory.

Me too. Go read the Grundrisse. I just paged through it and discovered Marx talking about *gasp* the environment and how capitalism is responsible for its commodification and destruction.

[Vanguard1917]

Me too. Go read the Grundrisse. I just paged through it and discovered Marx talking about *gasp* the environment and how capitalism is responsible for its commodification and destruction.

In the Grundrisse, Marx writes:

&#39;The labour concerned with material production can only have this chararacter [of really free labour] if (1) it is of a social nature, (2) it... gives up its purely natural, primitive aspects and becomes the activity of a subject controlling all the forces of nature in the production process.&#39;

Or are you talking about this bit where Marx praises capitalism&#39;s civilising, revolutionary impact in &#39;tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces&#39; (read carefully and learn):

&#39;Hence the great civilizing influence of capital, its production of a stage of society compared with which all earlier stages appear to be merely local progress and idolatory of nature. Nature becomes for the first time simply an object for manking, purely a matter of utility; it ceases to be recognised as a power in its own right; and the theoretical knowledge of its independent laws appears only as a stratagem designed to subdue it to human requirements, whether as the object of consumption or as the means of production. Pursuing this tendency, capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life. It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces.&#39;

The problem with capitalism, according to Marx, is that it becomes a burden on the development of the productive forces:

&#39;Viewed from the standpoint of capital, the stages of production that preceded it appear as so many fetters on the productive forces. But, correctly understood, capital itself appears as a condition for the development of productive forces so long as they need an external stimulant which at the same time a brake. Capital disciplines productive forces, but becomes a superfluous burden at a certain stage of their development...&#39;

Marx was the most enthusiastic advocate of industrial development. And that&#39;s precisely why he opposed capitalism&#33; Marxism and Green ideology cannot be reconciled.

[bcbm]

How can the bosses benefit from unrestricted industrial expansion, as you agree in your first paragraph, and be allies of the green movement, as you say in your last? And if they&#39;re allies, why do they fight so hard to oppose the greens in just about everything they do? <_<


I have more in common with the capitalist who at least pays lip-service to the virtues of economic growth, then i do with the &#39;anti-capitalist&#39; Green who wants humanity to produce less and consume less. And that&#39;s saying something...

Indeed, it is saying something...

But not anything you should be proud of.

By the way, why do you refer to youself as "we?"

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
Grundrisse yada yada yada

EXACTLY&#33; Capitalism has revolutionized our perspective of nature. It has harnessed nature and turned it into productive forces.

Now, those productive forces threaten to destroy the very environment that produced them. Capitalism will bring about the conditions of its own destruction, either through prompting a peoples&#39; movement that does away with it or by the destruction of the resources that sustain it.

Marx couldn&#39;t have possible foreseen the extent of the destruction of the planet that capitalism would bring about. If he had, I&#39;m sure he would have considered that in his criticisms of the system. Who wants a communist society if there&#39;s no planet to sustain it? What&#39;s the use? We&#39;re all dead&#33;


A consciously planned, socialist distribution would undoubtedly increase standards of living on its own. But no where near to the extent that is required.

Bullshit. We&#39;ve had enough food to feed the world for quite some time now. If collective ownership of property makes additional value (as Marx suggests it does) then all the better to get cracking on that revolution. But it&#39;s simply false to say that the whole world&#39;s population couldn&#39;t be provided for today if distribution was equal.

Somewhere along the line, you&#39;ve gotten this idea that the Green movement wants to stop production or something. If we don&#39;t make serious changes in the way that we produce, however, there will come a time when there will be no production&#33;


Marxism and Green ideology cannot be reconciled.

You. Don&#39;t. Get. It.

As I pointed out it my last post, Greens actually came out of the Autonomous Marxist tradition. Further Marxist-Green synthesis can be found in the agricultural practices being used in Cuba. Due to the embargo, agronomists and farmers have been forced to find farming practices that don&#39;t use oil. Many have turned to sustainable organic farming, which has apparently proved very successful.

Read that again if you need to. Green does not necessarily equal inefficient.

[YSR]

Incidentally, can anyone tell me why this thread is in the CC?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 06:36 pm
Incidentally, can anyone tell me why this thread is in the CC?
Because he wanted us to argue with or restrict "primitivists," which basically means anyone who doesn&#39;t felate industrialization.

[Vanguard1917]

Now, those productive forces threaten to destroy the very environment that produced them. Capitalism will bring about the conditions of its own destruction, either through prompting a peoples&#39; movement that does away with it or by the destruction of the resources that sustain it.

Makes no sense at all, i&#39;m afraid. The epoch of capitalism, by increasing human mastery of nature, has improved our nature from the perspective of humanity, not made it worse.


Marx couldn&#39;t have possible foreseen the extent of the destruction of the planet that capitalism would bring about. If he had, I&#39;m sure he would have considered that in his criticisms of the system. Who wants a communist society if there&#39;s no planet to sustain it? What&#39;s the use? We&#39;re all dead&#33;

This makes no sense either. The environment was in a much worse state - from man&#39;s perspective - in Marx&#39;s day than it is now. But Marx, nonetheless, remained the most enthusiastic advocate of economic growth.

Contrary to what Greens will have you believe, our natural environment has never been more suitable for human habitation than it is today in the 21st century.


Bullshit. We&#39;ve had enough food to feed the world for quite some time now. If collective ownership of property makes additional value (as Marx suggests it does) then all the better to get cracking on that revolution. But it&#39;s simply false to say that the whole world&#39;s population couldn&#39;t be provided for today if distribution was equal.

We might perhaps be able to satisfy the very basic needs of 6 billion+ people with the current level of the development of the productive forces.

But if we want the whole of humanity to enjoy the highest level of life that the 21st century can offer, we need mass, rapid, enormous development of the productive forces of society throughout the human world.

And such development can only improve man&#39;s position vis-a-vis his natural environment.


As I pointed out it my last post, Greens actually came out of the Autonomous Marxist tradition.

I couldn&#39;t care less; that doesn&#39;t mean anything. The murderers of Rosa Luxemburg came out of the &#39;Marxist tradition&#39; and so did Mussolini.


Indeed, it is saying something...

But not anything you should be proud of.

Yes, i&#39;m extremely proud to be a Marxist.


By the way, why do you refer to youself as "we?"

&#39;We&#39; refers to Marxists.


Incidentally, can anyone tell me why this thread is in the CC?

I think we should move it out to Theory now.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:09 am
Yes, i&#39;m extremely proud to be a Marxist.
If being a Marxist means agreeing with the bosses more than their enemies and not giving two shits about the environment... something is pretty wrong.



&#39;We&#39; refers to Marxists.

Why not just speak for yourself? You sound like an infomercial or something.


I think we should move it out to Theory now.

We concur.

[Vanguard1917]

If being a Marxist means agreeing with the bosses more than their enemies and not giving two shits about the environment... something is pretty wrong.

It can only possibly mean that to those with limited intellects.

And who are these &#39;enemies&#39; of the bosses that you&#39;re refering to? The Green Party?&#33; George Monbiot? Al Gore?

I think that it&#39;d be more accurate to say that Greens are the enemies of economic progress - and therefore, in effect, of the world&#39;s poor, hungry and deprived.

Marxists care a lot about the humanity&#39;s natural environment. We want humanity to master its environment to the highest possible degree, making it subject to humanity&#39;s will, make it serve humanity&#39;s interests.

And that calls for more economic development, not less. It calls for the kind of economic development that the Greens see in their worst nightmares.

The Marxist position on the environment is the direct opposite of the Green position.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:45 am
The Marxist position on the environment is the direct opposite of the Green position.
Which is what?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 17, 2007 10:47 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 17, 2007 10:47 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:45 am
The Marxist position on the environment is the direct opposite of the Green position.
Which is what? [/b]
The Green position or the Marxist position?

The Green position is that humanity should limit economic development. The Marxist position is that humanity needs to radically increase economic development. We believe that our natural environment has improved greatly - from a human perspective (i.e. not necessarily from the perspective of the giant panda bear or the Brazilian Cherry-throated Tanager bird) - due to economic development. The Greens think the opposite.

But the facts are on our side. The fact that 6 billion+ people are living longer and healthier lives on earth than ever before is indication enough that our natural environment is becoming a more and more suitable place for human inhabitation. And we have industrialisation to thank for this.

We celebrate this great human achievement, and want to build on it. The Greens - the misanthropic neo-Malthusians that they are - see an increased human presence on earth as grave cause for concern.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don&#39;t at all see why it&#39;s as binary as that. Are you telling me that we cannot create a society that secures human development and that does not destroy the planet in the process?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 12:04 pm
I don&#39;t at all see why it&#39;s as binary as that. Are you telling me that we cannot create a society that secures human development and that does not destroy the planet in the process?
Who said anything about &#39;destroying the planet&#39;? Read the thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+January 17, 2007 02:44 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ January 17, 2007 02:44 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 12:04 pm
I don&#39;t at all see why it&#39;s as binary as that. Are you telling me that we cannot create a society that secures human development and that does not destroy the planet in the process?
Who said anything about &#39;destroying the planet&#39;? Read the thread. [/b]
I don&#39;t want to read the thread.

So you are agreed that there can be a synthasis between the &#39;Marxist&#39; position and the green position, to both protect human development and safe guard the planet from environmental damage?

[Vanguard1917]

So you are agreed that there can be a synthasis between the &#39;Marxist&#39; position and the green position, to both protect human development and safe guard the planet from environmental damage?

You can&#39;t have industry without &#39;environmental damage&#39;. Nor can you have houses, roads, railways, schools, hospitals, etc. Every time anything is built, the land on which it is built is taken out of its natural state and is &#39;damaged&#39;.

The human goal is not to protect the environment from &#39;damage&#39;. That&#39;s called conservationism, which is opposed to the Marxist view. For us, the environment has no intrinsic worth. Human beings need to master their natural environment and make it serve human ends, which happens through the development of human industry. And that&#39;s why Red and Green can&#39;t mix. The latter despises the very thing that communists believe moves humanity forward - i.e. the development of the productive forces of society.

[Hit The North]

Vanguard 1917 writes:


Marxists care a lot about the humanity&#39;s natural environment. We want humanity to master its environment to the highest possible degree, making it subject to humanity&#39;s will, make it serve humanity&#39;s interests.

It can only serve humanity&#39;s interest if it is used well. There&#39;s no benefit to anyone if the seas are fished to extinction, for instance, or the rain-forests decimated to meet the demands of fat fast-food zombie nations.

One of the great threats which capital presents to our future is the wasteful and destructive manner in which it exploits the environment - IN THE NAME OF PROFIT.

There has to be a convergence between Marxism and ecological concerns. The fact that we aspire to create a society which embodies true human values should promote and not preclude a more responsible relationship to the natural world. For example, consumerism should go into decline as we become less reliant on bolstering our sense of self with material goods. If we become de-alienated, then the charm of these material objects will diminish. Plus, the abolition of the profit motive in our production will liberate our invention.

Edited to add: It seems to me that the argument we should be having with the Green Movement is an insistence that it is capitalism which is the despoiler and only through it&#39;s abolition can we secure a future on this planet.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:45 am
It can only possibly mean that to those with limited intellects.
Well, you&#39;re the one saying you agree with the bosses on issues of economic development, at least more than the greens.


And who are these &#39;enemies&#39; of the bosses that you&#39;re refering to? The Green Party?&#33; George Monbiot? Al Gore?

How could the bosses themselves be their own enemies? I&#39;m referring more to the greens outside of those parties, or just general people who give a fuck about the environment... the bosses certainly do everything in their power to destroy environmental legislation, etc, etc, so I don&#39;t see how you can say they support a green agenda.


I think that it&#39;d be more accurate to say that Greens are the enemies of economic progress - and therefore, in effect, of the world&#39;s poor, hungry and deprived.

Again, the problem is who controls the resources and thus the world&#39;s poor, hungry and deprived, not that there isn&#39;t enough industry to supply for them.


Marxists care a lot about the humanity&#39;s natural environment. We want humanity to master its environment to the highest possible degree, making it subject to humanity&#39;s will, make it serve humanity&#39;s interests.

And it obviously isn&#39;t in humanity&#39;s interests to destroy and make unlivable large portions of our natural environment, now is it? You do know that industrial development is possible without being complete destructive towards the natural environment, right? We have the technology to actually produce without making as big of an impact as completely unrestricted development, so why not support that?


And that calls for more economic development, not less. It calls for the kind of economic development that the Greens see in their worst nightmares.

Unregulated clear-cutting, fishing, farming, polluting? That would be their worst nightmares.


The Marxist position on the environment is the direct opposite of the Green position.

Well, the greens want to protect it, so... Marxists want to destroy it?


You can&#39;t have industry without &#39;environmental damage&#39;.

But that doesn&#39;t mean you need to wantonly destroy it either. Again, there is middle ground here.

[Vanguard1917]

None of you are understanding what i&#39;m saying here. We&#39;re just going around in circles.

I&#39;m telling you that - from a human perspective - our natural environment is in a better state today than it has ever been.

Contrary to Green nonsense, our natural environment has never been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today&#33;

Human beings are living longer and healthier lives than ever before, and they are less and less subject to the destructive effects of nature.

Unless you can disprove these facts, you have no case whatsoever. All you have is irrational bullshit Green fear-mongering. And the truth remains the truth: that economic development has radically improved and continues to improve human life on earth.

[bcbm]

Speaking of not understanding what someone is saying... <_<

[YSR]

None of you are understanding what i&#39;m saying here. We&#39;re just going around in circles.

Damn straight. I think it wast the first post, where you insinuated that all Greens are primitivists that started that little cycle, bub.

[Vanguard1917]

Green ideology is reactionary, as i have demonstrated very clearly in this thread. All those who adhere to Green ideology are, whether they are aware of it or not, adhering to one of the most central reactionary, anti-progress ideologies of our times.


Damn straight. I think it wast the first post, where you insinuated that all Greens are primitivists that started that little cycle, bub.

The dictionary.com definition of primitivism is:

&#39;1. a recurrent theory or belief, as in philosophy or art, that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilization.&#39;

Greens feel that modern life is &#39;destructive of the environment&#39;, which thus implies that previous ways of living were better.

Therefore, &#39;primitivist&#39; is a pretty accurate label for Green ideology.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:20 pm
Greens feel that modern life is &#39;destructive of the environment&#39;, which thus implies that previous ways of living were better.

Therefore, &#39;primitivist&#39; is a pretty accurate label for Green ideology.
Greens don&#39;t feel that way. This is a strawman argument and thus a logical fallacy.

[YSR]

Simple question: do you feel that hierarchy or egalitarianism is better?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:30 pm
Green ideology and today&#39;s stagnant global capitalism are inseparably interlinked - they&#39;re two sides of the same coin. The former is merely an ideological expression of the latter; i.e. Green ideology is an articulation of capitalist decay and that is why it is now part of official bourgeois ideology. Green ideology legitimates the extremely sluggish nature of today&#39;s global capitalism. Therefore, the Green movement is a friend of the bosses.
The bosses seem not to have noticed this - they seem to think that environmental regulation reduces their profits. Which it does.

In contrast, advocacy of "unrestrained" capitalism is more in tune with the bosses&#39; interests. Many capitalist ideologists oppose all regulation that interferes with the free market.

Your apparent claim that all environmental regulation is reactionary because it&#39;s an attempt to restrain capitalism, dovetails nicely with this kind of free-marketeer ideology.

I say apparent because of your tremendous, persistance reluctance to define your terms, say exactly who and what you mean by "green ideology", etc.

Yes, of course class society is a product of scarcity and all that, you know Marxist theory better than A.S. But it&#39;s very easy for any "theory" to be turned into just a set of rationalization and excuses for capitalist interests.

The heart of communism is not theory, or the increase of productive forces. It&#39;s the living class struggle.

"Communism is not a doctrine but a MOVEMENT; it proceeds not from principles but from FACTS......

"Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle, and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat."more (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

And it should be obvious humanity isn&#39;t going to end scarcity by ignoring the environmental consequences of our actions.

[Vanguard1917]

Greens don&#39;t feel that way. This is a strawman argument and thus a logical fallacy.

Greens don&#39;t feel that modern society is &#39;destructive of the environment&#39;? What?&#33; Are you even ever what Green ideology is?

Green ideology is hostile to the very thing that has made our modern society superior to all pre-modern societies: industrial, economic development.

Greens are against globalised economic production - the very thing that progressive thinkers like Marxists view as the most progressive feature of modern society. See the second Grundrisse quote that i posted above, for example.

The Green alternative is localised production - something which humanity thankfully started leaving behind hundreds of years ago, and something which will inevitably decrease levels of production and thus increase human poverty.

The Greens are hostile to modern technology. They are at the forefront of the movement against GM production - a method of production that has the potential to wipe human hunger off the face of this earth forever.

Their alternative is &#39;organic production&#39; - a primitive form of production which, if implemented, will inevitably lead to radically decreased food production, thus lead to increased food scarcity, and thus to increased human hunger.

It was Green pressure that led to laws limiting the use of DDT - an insecticide effective in fighting the spread of malaria - even though there&#39;s no substantial evidence that DDT is particularly harmful to humans in comparison with many other widely used pesticides.

But, according to Green bullshit fabrications, DDT was said to be harmful to &#39;The Environment&#39;. Now, malaria infects up to half a billion people every year. There are a million deaths per year due to malaria, 90% of which happen in Africa. Nonetheless, Green groups (like Greenpeace, the favourite pressure group of &#39;ethical&#39; middle class Westerners) are still calling for a total international ban&#33;

There&#39;s no avoiding the fact: the Greens are a danger to humanity. The only bigger danger is the stagnant global capitalism that has given birth to such a reactionary movement in the first place.


Simple question: do you feel that hierarchy or egalitarianism is better?

Simple answer: it depends on the context.

Modern, capitalist society is a superior society for human beings to live in than primitive communal society, even though the former is hierarchical and the latter was not.

Social equality - where society functions according to the principle &#39;from each according to his ability, to each according to his need&#39; - can only become a reality in modern communist society, when the problem of material scarcity is solved through enormous advancements in society&#39;s productive capabilities.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:54 am
But, according to Green bullshit fabrications, DDT was said to be harmful to &#39;The Environment&#39;. Now, malaria infects up to half a billion people every year. There are a million deaths per year due to malaria, 90% of which happen in Africa. Nonetheless, Green groups (like Greenpeace, the favourite pressure group of &#39;ethical&#39; middle class Westerners) are still calling for a total international ban&#33;
"Now, malaria infects up to half a billion people every year." "Now"?

Somehow, I think malaria and other preventable diseases were widespread before DDT was banned, too.

Somehow, I think it&#39;s primarily capitalism and imperialist-imposed underdevelopment - not Greens - who are responsible for this reality.

Oh, and I gotta doubt the assertion that "there&#39;s no substantial evidence that DDT is particularly harmful to humans". (Also the implication that it doesn&#39;t matter if it has a broader ecological effect. We are part of the ecology, y&#39;know. Indirect effects matter.)

Some people will claim there&#39;s no evidence is tobacco is harmful too, even haul out supposedly scientific studies.

Now, DDT&#39;s less harmful than malaria in many countries, sure. I agree that there should be no worldwide ban on DDT for disease eradication.

I don&#39;t think it should be used for routine crop protection.

See, part of your problem is you go all or nothing on this stuff. Kinda doctrinaire, dontcha think?


Greens don&#39;t feel that modern society is &#39;destructive of the environment&#39;? What?&#33; Are you even ever what Green ideology is?

Well, I don&#39;t know what you mean by "Green ideology". Nobody here knows, because you won&#39;t define your terms.

I&#39;d suggest that not everybody who considers themselves "Green", or is sometimes described as "Green", holds the same opinions.

You could take a general political platform of some sizable organization and analyze that, if you want to escape straw-man land.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:25 pm
For us, the environment has no intrinsic worth.
Except saving guarding us from extinction…?


Human beings need to master their natural environment and make it serve human ends, which happens through the development of human industry

Ok, but what happens when the environment no longer has the capability to ensure the safety of humanity and begins to kill us?


The latter despises the very thing that communists believe moves humanity forward - i.e. the development of the productive forces of society.

There is no point in creating a communist society if, at some point, the planet cannot safeguard humanities existence.

I am totally down with human development, but what does "human development" mean? More importantly, what is it worth if we cannot safeguard our existence because of it? In a communist society one would expect industry to have dramatically reduced. The only industry needed is simply that which provides us with the necessary things for humanities continuing survival; anything else is totally superfluous - except perhaps space exploration?

What do you actually mean when you say "development of human industry"? - What industry do human beings need do develop? If human beings want to develop technology that’s all well and good, but individual or collectives of scientists cannot force communities to go along with it – communism is not about creating a forum for technological advancement, but to create a truly equal society that is based on reason and objectivity.

This total and absolute belief that it is either human survival or the planets survival is total nonsense. For a start, whether you like it or not it is fact that at this point in history our survival as a species depends greatly on how we treat the environment. The notion that the "development of human industry" is singularly the progressive thing to do makes very little sense; destroying the planet for the purpose of securing development for a "few generations" of humans is not progression – safeguarding humanities continuing existence is progressive and if that means cutting unnecessary industry as a result, this is what must happen.

There needs to be a synthesis between securing development in a way that benefits human beings and ensuring that we don&#39;t destroy the planet in the process. That&#39;s the logical thing to do. Anything else, be it destroy industry to save the planet or build industry and fuck the planet is not progressive - to the point of being reactionary.

Neither of the things that are being proposed from "Marxists" and greens will safeguard the survival of humanity and that&#39;s the important thing,

[Vanguard1917]

"Now, malaria infects up to half a billion people every year." "Now"?

Somehow, I think malaria and other preventable diseases were widespread before DDT was banned, too.

Of course&#33; Malaria was much less widespread before restrictions on DDT use were put in place. The use of DDT was highly effective in curbing the spread of malaria.

Here are some cases (from Wikipedia):

&#39;In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.&#39;

&#39;After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective.&#39;

&#39;Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years.&#39;

The leaders of the Green movement should be shot by firing squad for calling for an international ban, as they&#39;re doing now.


Oh, and I gotta doubt the assertion that "there&#39;s no substantial evidence that DDT is particularly harmful to humans". (Also the implication that it doesn&#39;t matter if it has a broader ecological effect. We are part of the ecology, y&#39;know. Indirect effects matter.)

There&#39;s no substantial evidence that it&#39;s particularly harmful for humans compared with other widely used persticides. There is, on the other hand, vast evidende that DDT is effective in preventing millions of deaths in the world&#39;s poorest countries.


Somehow, I think it&#39;s primarily capitalism and imperialist-imposed underdevelopment - not Greens - who are responsible for this reality.

That&#39;s a cop-out and you know it. Greens are at the forefront of the movement to ban DDT in the underdeveloped world. Therefore we oppose them, even if that means supporting multinational corporations responsible for producing and distributing DDT.


Now, DDT&#39;s less harmful than malaria in many countries, sure. I agree that there should be no worldwide ban on DDT for disease eradication.

I don&#39;t think it should be used for routine crop protection.

I think that countries of the third world should be free to decide for themselves which pesticides they think it&#39;s best to use. They&#39;re the ones who need it most. They shouldn&#39;t have to follow the &#39;advice&#39; of organisations like Greenpeace, Al Gore and half of the US Democratic Party.


Well, I don&#39;t know what you mean by "Green ideology". Nobody here knows, because you won&#39;t define your terms.

Green ideology is the Western middle class ideology that economic development is going too far and that it needs to be held back. I&#39;ve made this very clear - several times.


In contrast, advocacy of "unrestrained" capitalism is more in tune with the bosses&#39; interests. Many capitalist ideologists oppose all regulation that interferes with the free market.

I&#39;ve never said that i support unrestrained capitalism - i.e. of the freer markets kind. But i fully oppose environmentalist arguments for restrictions on economic growth.


Yes, of course class society is a product of scarcity and all that, you know Marxist theory better than A.S. But it&#39;s very easy for any "theory" to be turned into just a set of rationalization and excuses for capitalist interests.

Our interests, not capitalist interests. The interests of the world&#39;s hungry, diseased and deprived. It is for the sake of humanity that we oppose objections to economic growth.


The heart of communism is not theory, or the increase of productive forces. It&#39;s the living class struggle.

Actually it isn&#39;t. Marx&#39;s central achievement was to prove that it is the development of the productive forces - of man&#39;s productive capabilities and his mastery of nature - that moves humanity forward. Classes struggle only when the relationships of production of the particular epoch restrain the development of the productive forces.

&#39;And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and the bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove... that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production.&#39; (Marx&#39;s italics)


"Communism is not a doctrine but a MOVEMENT; it proceeds not from principles but from FACTS......

Yes, and what are the facts? The facts are that humanity is in a far better position today than it has ever been fundamentally because of economic development - something which environmentalists wish to restrain.


And it should be obvious humanity isn&#39;t going to end scarcity by ignoring the environmental consequences of our actions.

But you&#39;ve missed one of my central points: that our environment is - from a human perspective - in better shape today than it has ever been in the history of man&#39;s existence on earth.

Contrary to Green bullshit, the world has never been a more suitable place for human inhabitation than it is today. The main, key, fundamental reason for this is economic development.

History suggests that the better developed we are, the better equiped we are in dealing with environmental threats - hunger, disease, earthquakes, heatwaves, storms, etc. And this suggests that we should continue to pursue economic development, to massively increase it, more evenly and more widely, and never to restrain it.

That&#39;s why environmentalism is philistinism. Marxists ought to know better.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:55 pm


That&#39;s why environmentalism is philistinism. Marxists ought to know better.
Then I suppose I should now be banned, for I, according to yourself, am a Primitivist.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:54 am
Greens don&#39;t feel that modern society is &#39;destructive of the environment&#39;? What?&#33; Are you even ever what Green ideology is?
Greens feel that unchecked and unregulated industrialism by capitalists is harmful to the environment. And even if your initial statement were true, the conclusions you drew from it are absolutely false and not pushed by any but a tiny minority in the green movement.



Green ideology is hostile to the very thing that has made our modern society superior to all pre-modern societies: industrial, economic development.

No, it isn&#39;t... another strawman. And superior? By what measure, there certainly isn&#39;t an objective one.


Greens are against globalised economic production - the very thing that progressive thinkers like Marxists view as the most progressive feature of modern society. See the second Grundrisse quote that i posted above, for example.

What quote? Greens have often been part of the anti-globalization movement, but I do not think they are inherently opposed to global economic production, merely certain aspects of it as it is run by the capitalist system.


The Greens are hostile to modern technology. They are at the forefront of the movement against GM production - a method of production that has the potential to wipe human hunger off the face of this earth forever.

We already have the means to eradicate human hunger and have for some time. So long as there is no long term evidence on the effects of GM foods, I think it is fine to be skeptical of them, and their use by capitalists has been detrimental to the poor across the entire globe.



Modern, capitalist society is a superior society for human beings to live in than primitive communal society, even though the former is hierarchical and the latter was not.

Why?

[YSR]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+January 18, 2007 04:27 pm--> (CCCPneubauten @ January 18, 2007 04:27 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 12:55 pm


That&#39;s why environmentalism is philistinism. Marxists ought to know better.
Then I suppose I should now be banned, for I, according to yourself, am a Primitivist. [/b]
Sign me up, too.

[Vanguard1917]

No, it isn&#39;t... another strawman. And superior? By what measure, there certainly isn&#39;t an objective one.

No, an hostile attitude towards economic growth is held by the mainstream of the Green movement - by its leaders, its funders, and its grassroots supporters in the Western middle classes.


What quote?

The Grudrisse (a brilliant book by Karl Marx, in which he explains the great civilising and revolutionary role of industrial development) quote that i posted in this thread in reply to the other primitivist &#39;Young Stupid Radical&#39;.


Greens have often been part of the anti-globalization movement, but I do not think they are inherently opposed to global economic production, merely certain aspects of it as it is run by the capitalist system.

What the hell are you talking about? Mainstream Greens are calling for more localised production as opposed to globalised production.


We already have the means to eradicate human hunger and have for some time.

Show me the evidence that &#39;organic production&#39; can feed, to a level of sufficient quality and quantity, 6 billion+ people.


So long as there is no long term evidence on the effects of GM foods, I think it is fine to be skeptical of them, and their use by capitalists has been detrimental to the poor across the entire globe

GM food technology has the potential to end the historic problem of human hunger once and for all.


And superior? By what measure, there certainly isn&#39;t an objective one.

Modern society is superior to all pre-modern societies put together by every objective measure.

Here are some statistics to put things into a little perspective.

The most striking improvement has been in the levels of life expectancy. For most of human history, human beings were living extremely short lives, relatively speaking. The average citizen of Ancient Rome, for example, lived for only 22 years.

Until around the 15th century, the average human life expectancy was around 20-30 years. The life expectancy of the whole world in 1900 is estimated to have been around 30. By the end of the 20th century, world life expectancy was around 67. So the 20th century has seen the life expectancy of humanity more than double worldwide.

Today, more than 85% of the world&#39;s human inhabitants can expect to live for at least 60 years. This is remarkable historical progress, and it&#39;s due centrally to economic development.

Infant mortality is at all-time lows. Studies of hunter-gatherer societies show that around 50% of children died before reaching the age of 1. Worldwide, 18% of every child born died in 1950. In 1995 this was 6%. Of course, progress has been greatest in the industrialised countries: 6% of newborns did not survive in 1950; that figure was less than 1% in 2000.

We&#39;re also living healthier lives than ever before, due to improved hygiene standards, better healthcare and better diets.

Due to agricultural progress (which involves advancements in high-yield crops, irrigation and water supply, fertilisers and pesticides, and all-round agricultural management), there is today more food than ever. And this food is less costly than ever.

Worldwide, we are better educated than we have ever been. Illiteracy in the underdeveloped world has droped from around 70% in 1920 (according to birth year - i.e. those born in 1920) to around 18% today. More than 80% of women born in 1920 in underdeveloped countries were illiterate. This figue is less than 20 percent for women born in 1985.

People in industrialised countries have more leisure time today than they have ever had. In the developed countries, human beings are working less than they used to. In 1870, the typical man in Britain worked from the age of 10 until he died at the age of around 47. Yearly working hours have dropped drastically in the Western world since around the end of the 19th century. Workers in most Western countries work about half as much as they did in the late 19th century. People have shorter hours and more vacations in the industrialised world.

Contary to Green fear-mogering, we live safer lives today than ever before. There are drastically fewer deaths today from natural catastrophes (epidemics, floods, tidal waves, droughts, famines, earthquakes, storms, etc.) than there have ever been. In the 1930s, more than 45 people per 100,000 died as a result of floods, tidal waves and wind storms. In the 1990s, that figure dropped to below 2 people per 100,000. In the 1910s, around 145 people per 100,000 died due to epidemics. By the 1990s that level had dropped so much that i can barely decipher it on the graph (though it&#39;s definately below 2 per 100,000).

In short, modern society has given us unprecedented prosperity. Worldwide, we live longer, healthier, wealthier and safer lives. We are more educated than we have ever been, and thus less ignorant (excluding Green philistines). Those of us lucky enough to live in the developed world also have much more free, leisure time to pursue our interests.

Humanity has made some brilliant progress. We&#39;re an amazing species. But we have only just learnt to crawl. Let&#39;s take things further&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Vanguard, why haven&#39;t you responded to me?

[Vanguard1917]

I&#39;ve already addressed your main points in this thread, which you&#39;ve said you don&#39;t want to read.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
I&#39;ve already addressed your main points in this thread, which you&#39;ve said you don&#39;t want to read.
Repition&#39;s your forte.

At least link me to the posts.

[YSR]

Not to shoot more holes in your wide open by forcefully-repeated argument, but:

The whole GM thing. The matter is more than up in the air in terms of scientific evidence. And the people who are leading the charge against GM crops are certainly not the Green "leaders, its funders, and its grassroots supporters in the Western middle classes," but rather Indian peasant farmers. Convince me that those folks are middle-class Westerners and you&#39;ll blow my mind.


Originally posted by Vanguard1984
The most striking improvement has been in the levels of life expectancy. For most of human history, human beings were living extremely short lives, relatively speaking. The average citizen of Ancient Rome, for example, lived for only 22 years.

"Yay for technology&#33;" says the &#39;primitivist.&#39; I&#39;d like to see us cure cancer and AIDS&#33; I&#39;d like to extend human life even more&#33; So would other "Greens," if I&#39;m gonna be called that (which I never would, for fear of being confused with the Zerzanite "Green Anarchists"). But the way in which we do those things needs to be conscious of our industrial environment.

I know this argument means nothing to you, because you&#39;ll just say, "See&#33; They care about Earth, they oppose all technology&#33;" but if you actually read what I just wrote, you&#39;ll see that&#39;s not true.


People in industrialised countries have more leisure time today than they have ever had.

I call bullshit on this one. Leisure time isn&#39;t leisure time under capitalism. It&#39;s carefully-crafted time for workers to recover and prepare for work. So who cares how much we have? Bourgeois leisure, as you mean it, exists only for the privileged classes. Leisure exists as a way for workers to blow off steam that they might otherwise direct towards their jobs. And even during leisure time, we spend our time surrounded and inundated by icons of capitalist hegemony. We cannot escape capitalism without overthrowing it.


Contary to Green fear-mogering, we live safer lives today than ever before.

For now.

Sweetheart, have you looked outside? Have you followed the most basic of climate patterns in the past five years? We are undergoing climate-fucking-change. Our lives won&#39;t be too safe when the pollution that we spew into the air makes our planet an unlivable hellhole. Well, that&#39;s not true. The capitalists will find plenty of ways to deal with it for themselves. The rest of us will just choke.

Oh wait, tell me one of those cats who doesn&#39;t believe in global warming. That would be a hoot and a half.


Humanity has made some brilliant progress. We&#39;re an amazing species. But we have only just learnt to crawl. Let&#39;s take things further&#33;

You ain&#39;t gonna find any disagreement from me. But by "further," if you mean "towards destruction," you&#39;re just on the wrong track. "Further" means both finding new ways to advance civilization while simultaneously freeing ourselves from the grip of hierarchy and capital. It means advancing the human race without destroying the thing which keeps us alive. Not for its own sake (although I do fancy a walk in the woods from time to time. I can&#39;t see the stars from the city) but for our sake.

Without a healthy environment, we are screwed. Well, you might be okedokey, Vanguard, but those "backwards" tribal peoples who you want to "civilize" despite their insistence that they like their lives, will be fucked. But that&#39;s okay, isn&#39;t it? They&#39;re not playing the game right.

See, you&#39;re what&#39;s scary about Marxism, man. (Not to tar my Marxist comrades with this cat&#39;s brush.) This totalizing system of yours takes everything with it, whether it wants to or no. People who depend on the environment for their livelihoods have a choice: "civilize" or die. And seeing as capitalist civilization is pretty damn alienating (ask Marx about this one) you offer folks a Devil&#39;s choice.

[jaycee]

1st of all vanguard 1917 you have no knowledge of primitive communist societies. This is clear from your statement that we have more leisure time than ever before, in most primitive communist societies people worked on average 2-3 hours day.



Also I think this post I did earlier is quite good.



i think that the capitalism obviously produces a certain type of technology (or rather gives rise to certain types)and much of it has negative effects. I don&#39;t only mean obvious things like cars polluting (both the air, noise pollution and pollution to the eyes, i.e motorways and dirty streets etc) and nukes but also more subtle things. For example t.v is damaging because of the way we live our lives, watching too much(which is also connected to its alienating anti-social aspect), not exercising. Both of these are connected to things like the hours we work, lack of community etc.

Also another subtle way in which capitism turns technology into a negative thing is reflected in a thing that happened to me recently. I was had just had a spliff with a mate and then we went outside, when i left the house i suddenly felt a great deal of stress leave me. I think this was due to getting out of the cramped confined space which houses are. This is not a criticism of houses but rather a criticism of the lack of community and extreme alienation in modern capitalism. Therefore the fact that people in older societies (especially primitive communist societies) had small houses (generally) was not very important this was because they tended to only eat and sleep in their house and the majority of their time was spent outdoors with the community. Under capitalism technology reflects one of the most widespread sicknesses of our time (alienation) and everything is built in accordance with this, everything becomes more and more confined and seperate to everything else.

Basically communist humanity will develope technology in a non alienating way and therefore will produce it in what Marx called the &#39;natural laws of beuty&#39;. I think it is false to say either humanity will go &#39;back to nature&#39; or it will advance technology, it will do both as producing technology is clearly a major part of human nature and alienation stems from acting in ways which is contary to human nature or turning central parts of human nature into oppressive forces as labour is now. It will return to primitive communism on a higher level , &#39;a return made conscious&#39; as Marx put it.

Therefore primitivism does have a valid point in terms of seeing primitive communism as quantifiably better than capitalism in that it alienation and mental repression was far less developed. However that is no reason to throw away the progrssive aspects of human development

[chimx]

I&#39;m surprised that this primitivism discussion has been geared predominately towards ecological concerns. One of the things that primitivism addresses a great deal, and which John Zerzan and company love to write about is the psychological problems related to advanced civilized society. This is because ultimately primitivism is a byproduct of not the anarchist school, but the communist school, being extremely influenced by the "early Marx" and his discussions of alienation within capitalism; which for primitivists is a product of civilization generally, not simply classist civilization. Honestly I think it is a valid criticism and one that technological advocates too often shy away from. The required degree of labor division, bureaucracy, and alienation for what some of you advocate is astonishing, yet you advance forward with an uncritical mind.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:31 am
No, an hostile attitude towards economic growth is held by the mainstream of the Green movement - by its leaders, its funders, and its grassroots supporters in the Western middle classes.
No, it isn&#39;t. As I said before, they are hostile to pretty specific things within the economy, but not hostile to economic growth as a whole. Unless you have some evidence?


What the hell are you talking about? Mainstream Greens are calling for more localised production as opposed to globalised production.

What are their specific demands? Evidence, please.



Show me the evidence that &#39;organic production&#39; can feed, to a level of sufficient quality and quantity, 6 billion+ people.

I never said anything about organic production. I said we currently have the means to end hunger, and we do.



GM food technology has the potential to end the historic problem of human hunger once and for all.

Once again, WE HAVE THE MEANS TO END IT NOW. And you dodged my point: GM crops have been detrimental to the poor, not beneficial.



Modern society is superior to all pre-modern societies put together by every objective measure.

There is no objective measure of superiority. Though I would ask... how much happier are people today, worldwide?

[Nusocialist]

While primitivism is stupid,it is certain that a post-revolutionary world would be far more decentralised and in tune with the enviroment.
There can be no other way,that is trully in tune with the revolution.

[Vargha Poralli]

While certainly we have to agree that primitivism is really stupid the deus ex machina argument proposed by vanguard 1917 is in same par with it. I think vanguard1917 really needs to know the difference between environmentalism and primitivism and real Science and Science Fiction. And Eco-Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Socialism) which is clearly inspired by Marxism is completely different from primitivism and totally opposed to what vanguard1917 is trying to paint them as or confusing with . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Socialism#Criticisms_of_Malthusianism)

[The Feral Underclass]

Ive read the thread now and you haven&#39;t addressed my posts at all, you big liar&#33;

Now respond to me or I&#39;ll take that to mean you have no argument to respond with.

[chimx]

I also don&#39;t agree that primitivism is stupid, for the reasons I posted, which have since been overlooked.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:50 pm
I also don&#39;t agree that primitivism is stupid, for the reasons I posted, which have since been overlooked.
Vanguard1917 has no conception of what "primitivism" even is, he is just railing against anyone who is concerned with the environment at all, though I think your points deserve a response as I agree with them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:47 pm
This is because ultimately primitivism is a byproduct of not the anarchist school, but the communist school, being extremely influenced by the "early Marx" and his discussions of alienation within capitalism; which for primitivists is a product of civilization generally, not simply classist civilization.
How is alienation created from "civilisation"?


The required degree of labor division, bureaucracy, and alienation for what some of you advocate is astonishing, yet you advance forward with an uncritical mind.

Firstly are you saying that because work creates different people who work these different jobs become alienated from, well I assume each other...?

Secondly what is the argument that technology necessarily creates bureaucracy?

[Vanguard1917]

And the people who are leading the charge against GM crops are certainly not the Green "leaders, its funders, and its grassroots supporters in the Western middle classes," but rather Indian peasant farmers.

Indian peasants are leading the anti-GM movement? Don&#39;t be ridiculous. Indian peasants don&#39;t lead anything - and they certainly aren&#39;t leading a multi-million dollar &#39;organic food&#39; industry that exists solely to satisfy the shopping demands of the &#39;ethical&#39; Western middle class.


"Yay for technology&#33;" says the &#39;primitivist.&#39; I&#39;d like to see us cure cancer and AIDS&#33; I&#39;d like to extend human life even more&#33; So would other "Greens," if I&#39;m gonna be called that (which I never would, for fear of being confused with the Zerzanite "Green Anarchists"). But the way in which we do those things needs to be conscious of our industrial environment.

But the only reason that we are even in a position to cure or treat illnesses such as AIDS and cancer is due to the great industrial developments of the modern era. Society cannot develop state-of-the-art hospitals, medical schools, medical research centers, etc. in underdeveloped economic conditions.


I call bullshit on this one. Leisure time isn&#39;t leisure time under capitalism. It&#39;s carefully-crafted time for workers to recover and prepare for work. So who cares how much we have?

Workers care, which is why a reduced working day has always been a key demand of the labour movement.

It might not matter to western middle class snobs, but workers actually like having more time off work. They actually like going abroad on holiday - made possible by low-cost air travel, something which Greens despise.


Have you followed the most basic of climate patterns in the past five years? We are undergoing climate-fucking-change.

And? So we should stop everything we&#39;re doing, practice restraint, be more humble in our relationships with nature, etc. - i.e. do what the Greens want us to do? Or is the way to confront natural threats is actually to do the opposite of what the Greens propose?

It is true that the temperature is increasing - by about 0.4-0.8 celsius in the last 150 years or so. But, contrary to what the Greens think, global warming is not even close to being the most important problem facing the world today. The single most important problem facing the world today is the problem of economic underdevelopment. This is the problem that brings misery to the lives of billions of human beings. It is the problem which holds humanity back and does not allow us to realise our true creative potential.

If such climate trends continue, they certainly can have negative consequences for humanity. But humanity as it exists now; i.e. we do not know that a change in climate will be a significant problem for human beings in, say, 100 years from now. If we have the kind of economic development that we need, human beings in the year 2107 should be in a much better position to deal with natural threats like climate change. Just like we&#39;re in a much better position today to deal with natural threats than we were in 1907 - due to the reality of economic development.

As the Greens like pointing out, we need to act now for the sake of future generations. That&#39;s true. We need to act now and end capitalism with the aim of bringing about a kind of economic progress that humanity has not yet come close to witnessing. That is how we secure the wellbeing of future generations of human beings.


This is because ultimately primitivism is a byproduct of not the anarchist school, but the communist school, being extremely influenced by the "early Marx"

If the primitivists are &#39;extremely influenced&#39; by Marx, they must have extremely poor comprehension skills. Primitivist ideas are as alien to Marxism as racist or fascist ones. There is nothing in Marx&#39;s earlier or later writings remotely similar to anything that you&#39;re defending. As i keep pointing out, Marx was the most enthusiastic advocate of industrial development. In the German Ideology, as early as 1845 (when Marx was around 27), Marx and Engels could not have made their position any clearer (as i posted elsewhere in this thread):

&#39;...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and...in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food, drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. &#39;Liberation&#39; is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...&#39;

.................

It should be noted that 3 people in this thread have made it explicitly clear that they sympathise with primitivism: &#39;chimx&#39;, &#39;jaycee&#39;, and &#39;black coffee black metal&#39; (who says that he &#39;agrees with&#39; the &#39;points&#39; made by &#39;chimx&#39;).

I think that we should get rid of the anti-primitivist rule, since it&#39;s not being enforced.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 09:32 pm

How is alienation created from "civilisation"?

i dont really like primitivism because the primitivist solution would be the death of millions--millions that can only be sustained with an industrial mode of production.

however, the primitvist critcism is very valid. the beginning of civilization was also the beginning of class society. the need of a division of labor in order to sustain a relatively elaborate society led to the division of classes. before sedentary life, much people "worked" for around 2-4 hours collecting fruits and grains that grew by themselves and where very abundant. this chore didnt really require any specialized sector, and women could participate in it because it didnt require much time and strength. after those 2-4 hours, much of the life led by primitive men was based around "play".

however, when sedentary modes of production where introduced, things started to fuck up. gender role rose as a result of the differences of strength between men and women and how agriculture required lots of muscular strength. also, the introduction of a surplus led to a manageral class that could be sustained with such surplus.

modern society is also very alienating in the sense that much of our lives are lived through spectacles, and this centralization of information and ideology would have been impossible without the technology today. the thing is that the ruling class has a much more effective control over our minds than it ever had before. people believe that today they are free and that they truly participate in the making of their lives--a false belief that didnt exist before.

however this technology has so much potential, it has the potential to eliminate most of work and to sustain for ourselves a life of play and happiness. the solution is not to destroy it, but to destroy class society by seizing ourselves the means of production through the organization of democratic councils.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:19 pm
Indian peasants are leading the anti-GM movement? Don&#39;t be ridiculous. Indian peasants don&#39;t lead anything - and they certainly aren&#39;t leading a multi-million dollar &#39;organic food&#39; industry that exists solely to satisfy the shopping demands of the &#39;ethical&#39; Western middle class.
Do you know fucking anything about GM crops? They&#39;ve been devastating to poor peasants all over the world, so yes, many peasants are involved in the anti-GM movement because it hurts them&#33;

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
It might not matter to western middle class snobs, but workers actually like having more time off work.

Do you know anything about Marxism? There is no such thing as "free time" in capitalism&#33; Capitalism is totalizing and hegemonic. Even "free time" is bought with the selling of one&#39;s labor power.

I hate to do this, but I kind of start to see why TC has this "no platform for trolls" thing and I&#39;m going to have to apply it to you. I&#39;m a worker, I&#39;m a Wobbly, not a "middle class snob" and you&#39;re a dumbshit. Anytime you respond to me, I&#39;m going to consider it trolling and ignore it.

This website has never made me more mad than it is right now. Shit.

[Vargha Poralli]

Indian peasants are leading the anti-GM movement? Don&#39;t be ridiculous. Indian peasants don&#39;t lead anything - and they certainly aren&#39;t leading a multi-million dollar &#39;organic food&#39; industry that exists solely to satisfy the shopping demands of the &#39;ethical&#39; Western middle class.

Just because you don&#39;t know something that doesn&#39;t mean it never exists. I live in India and I am a sympathiser to an farmer&#39;s organisation which is fighting many policies of current Central and state governments neo-liberal policies on among which is the opposition to GM. And many peasants have committed suicide because of the over-reliance on artificial fertilizers and pesticides and many of them have returned to organic farming because of it.Unfortunately i don&#39;t have any onlince source to back up my argument.

chimx


Beyond Leftism

Primitivists do not see themselves as part of the Left (see also post-left anarchy). Rather they view the socialist and liberal orientations as bankrupt. Primitivists argue that the Left has proven itself to be a monumental failure in its objectives. The Left, according to primitivists, is a general term and can roughly describe all socialist leanings (from social democrats and liberals to Maoists and Stalinists) which wish to re-socialize “the masses” into a more “progressive” agenda, often using coercive and manipulative approaches in order to create a false “unity” or the creation of political parties. While primitivists understand that the methods or extremes in implementation may differ, the overall push is seen as the same: the institution of a collectivized and monolithic world-view based on morality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primi...#Beyond_Leftism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism#Beyond_Leftism)

I think there is a difference between Eco-Socialism which is inspired by Marxism and Anarcho-Primitivsm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) which i think don&#39;t offer a reasonable alternative as opposed to the former.

[chimx]

g.ram

I think there is a difference between Eco-Socialism which is inspired by Marxism and Anarcho-Primitivsm which i think don&#39;t offer a reasonable alternative as opposed to the former.

While it may reject Leftism and ultimately Marxism as an ideology, it is still influenced by Marx the thinker and his writings on primitive communalism and capitalist alienation. I&#39;m not saying that primitivists consider themselves Marxists at all. I&#39;m just thinking that the primitivist critique is founded to some degree on Marxist thought.

TAT

Firstly are you saying that because work creates different people who work these different jobs become alienated from, well I assume each other...?

Secondly what is the argument that technology necessarily creates bureaucracy?

I think marmot answered your questions regarding the question you asked when I did not quote here. Also let me say that I am not saying this, but simply trying to put forth primitivst criticism. It isn&#39;t my own thinking. Primitivists would argue that labor division would alienate person from person, as well as person from product.

I can&#39;t see how bureaucracy wouldn&#39;t be necessary. Think of all the components within your computer alone. The degree of administrative work necessary for the international transportation and later assembly is massive. The technocratic vision of automatization would see this grow exponentially.

Vanguard

It should be noted that 3 people in this thread have made it explicitly clear that they sympathise with primitivism: &#39;chimx&#39;, &#39;jaycee&#39;, and &#39;black coffee black metal&#39; (who says that he &#39;agrees with&#39; the &#39;points&#39; made by &#39;chimx&#39;).

I think that we should get rid of the anti-primitivist rule, since it&#39;s not being enforced.
I already talked above on the relations to primitivism to marxism. I am not saying that marx was a primitivist, nor am i saying that primitivists are marxists (though I did mean a marxist-primitivist once).

Also, I disagree with primitivist thought. If I said that "i agree", and I don&#39;t recall doing so, than I misspoke. I said that I enjoy that primitivism exists within the anti-capitalist movement, because I think it is a necessary dialectic on unchecked technological advancement and forces some self-criticism on the nature of human progress.

Lastly, I sympathize with Marxism, but I am not a Marxist. I don&#39;t follow your logic entirely.

[Vargha Poralli]

chimx

So do you agree with my point that in practice the primitivist idealogy i.e going back to primitive communism will not work. The issue is not whether they are inspired by Marx or not but will their solution work ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Marmot,

All very interesting.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:28 pm
chimx
So do you agree with my point that in practice the primitivist idealogy i.e going back to primitive communism will not work. The issue is not whether they are inspired by Marx or not but will their solution work ?
What do you mean work? I think obviously countless deaths would result, making it unpreferable, but I think for a time primitive communalism could work similarly to it did in the past--assuming one could even regress to that point. I think the short-comings of primitivism is that they tend to remain silent when one asks how to avoid the development of class divisions as they did in the past.

[Vanguard1917]

Young Stupid Radical:

Do you know anything about Marxism?

:lol: A little, here and there; i have my moments. But next to you, i&#39;m Friedrich fucking Engels.


There is no such thing as "free time" in capitalism&#33; Capitalism is totalizing and hegemonic. Even "free time" is bought with the selling of one&#39;s labor power.

This is empty rhetoric, and i sincerely doubt that you know what the hell you&#39;re going on about.

But Marx did know what he was talking about, and his position was very clear: the economic and political struggle of the working class movement for a reduction in the working day is a very important struggle.

This is because the amount of time that a worker works in capitalist society is determined by the class struggle. As he writes in Capital:

&#39;...in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class.&#39;

The struggle over the working day is an important economic and political struggle in that it advances and develops the organisation of the working class against the capitalists. Marx again:

&#39;...the attempt in a particular factory or even in a particualr trade to force a shorter working day out of individual capitalists by strikes, ect., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force and eight-hour, etc., law is a political movement, that is to say, a movement of the class, with the object of enforcing its interests in a general form, in a form possessing general, socially coercive force. While these movements pressupose a certain degree of previous organization, they are in turn equally a means of developing this organization.&#39;


I hate to do this, but I kind of start to see why TC has this "no platform for trolls" thing and I&#39;m going to have to apply it to you. I&#39;m a worker, I&#39;m a Wobbly, not a "middle class snob" and you&#39;re a dumbshit. Anytime you respond to me, I&#39;m going to consider it trolling and ignore it.

This website has never made me more mad than it is right now. Shit.

Instead of throwing a tantrum like a spoilt little schoolgirl who didn&#39;t get her way, you need to pull yourself together and learn. But you don&#39;t want to learn because you think you already know everything.

It really isn&#39;t too late for you; your highly limited intellect is of your own making, and thus can be unmade.

Good luck&#33; ;)

chimx:

I said that I enjoy that primitivism exists within the anti-capitalist movement, because I think it is a necessary dialectic on unchecked technological advancement and forces some self-criticism on the nature of human progress.

Then you&#39;re not opposed to primitivism. It&#39;s like me saying that i oppose fascism and enjoy its existence at the same time.

Furthermore, why does technological progress need to be kept in check?


Lastly, I sympathize with Marxism

I don&#39;t see how that&#39;s possible. What did Marx do to attract your sympathy? What is it in Marxism - the single most central and revolutionary aspect of which is the belief that human progress is only realised through economic progress - that you sympathise with?

Marxism is the antithesis of primitivism in all its forms.

[chimx]

Furthermore, why does technological progress need to be kept in check?

For reasons I have already stated. You argue like a 4-year-old: you ignore points, slander individuals, and distort opinions to suit your own ends. I would accuse you of trolling, but that would imply that you were intelligent enough to know better. As it is I simply suspect that you are just an idiot.

[Cryotank Screams]

Primitivists=Dumbass madmen.

But seriously I would define a primitivist, as someone who no only opposes modern society, but also technology, and other such advances in favor, of some romanticized version of the more primitive early stages of man, when man was devoid of language, tools, art, reason, and various other pleasures, and advancement we now enjoy, due to the false and oversimplified version, that because people in today&#39;s industrial society are oppressed we must do away with everything about it, including things such as language.

Mainly primitivists would adhere to the works and philosophies espoused by John Zerzan, and other such buffoons, and support the de-evolution of society for some caveman utopia.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:55 am

"Now, malaria infects up to half a billion people every year." "Now"?

Somehow, I think malaria and other preventable diseases were widespread before DDT was banned, too.

Of course&#33; Malaria was much less widespread before restrictions on DDT use were put in place.
You&#39;ve successfully demonstrated that DDT can be an effective means of controlling malaria, and I&#39;m fine with using it for that. Also that the calls to ban all use of DDT everywhere should be opposed. But you haven&#39;t backed up the implication that Greens are primarily responsible for the continued prevalence of malaria in the Third World. (And let&#39;s not forget there are other preventable diseases which kill millions there.)

Here&#39;s a well-informed editorial arguing for the use of DDT for malaria control (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEEDA1738F932A25757C0A9629C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1)

Lemme point out a couple things. One, it doesn&#39;t dismiss the health and environmental dangers of DDT; on the contrary it advocates using DDT much more selectively than in the past.

Two, it points out that there was a major worldwide eradication effort using DDT which simply failed; total eradication is no longer considered possible. And that mosquitos began to build up DDT resistance. These are the major reasons DDT use declined - and yes, malaria rates increased - not the great Green conspiracy.

The article also says:

Because the ban on DDT became the midwife to the environmental movement, the debate about it, even today, is bizarrely polarized. Most environmental groups don&#39;t object to DDT where it is used appropriately and is necessary to fight malaria. But liberals still tend to consider it a symbol of the Frankenstein effects of unbridled faith in technology. For conservatives, whose Web sites foam at the mouth about the hypocrisy of environmentalists, DDT continues to represent the victory of overzealous regulators and Luddites who misread and distort science.
Emphasis added. A bit more evidence that you&#39;re doing a bit of a straw man here: "Most environmental groups don&#39;t object to DDT where it is used appropriately and is necessary to fight malaria"



Somehow, I think it&#39;s primarily capitalism and imperialist-imposed underdevelopment - not Greens - who are responsible for this reality.

That&#39;s a cop-out and you know it. Greens are at the forefront of the movement to ban DDT in the underdeveloped world.

How is that a copout, and how is that "movement" primarily responsible for the prevalence of many preventable diseases throughout the Third World? They may call for an international ban on DDT, but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re going to get it.

This is not a minor point: who is the main enemy. Who has social power?


Therefore we oppose them, even if that means supporting multinational corporations responsible for producing and distributing DDT.

Why do you have to support multinational corporations in order to oppose them? Isn&#39;t there another option: independent working-class politics?


I think that countries of the third world should be free to decide for themselves which pesticides they think it&#39;s best to use.

Of course. The main obstacle to that is the aid agencies placing conditions on their aid - little to do with Al Gore&#39;s "advice". Conditional, strings-attached aid is a general feature of imperialism, with many examples that have nothing to do with "Green ideology".


Green ideology is the Western middle class ideology that economic development is going too far and that it needs to be held back.

Oh. Does everyone who calls themselves "Green" define it that way, or are you maybe constructing a little bit of a straw man?

You seem to oppose all environmental regulation, not just an abstract ideology that allegedly opposes economic development.

Lemme point out here the logical fallacy of your initial post (at the beginning of the thread). You wrote:"These are some of the key characteristics of people who follow primitivist doctrines:" and listed some common features, they&#39;re often vegetarians and so forth.

Yes, many primitivists are all those things; this does not prove everyone with those characteristics is primitivists. Most serial killers set fires, wet their beds, and tortured animals as children; but most children who do those things do not grow up to become serial killers.

It&#39;s a standard logical fallacy.



The heart of communism is not theory, or the increase of productive forces. It&#39;s the living class struggle.

Actually it isn&#39;t. Marx&#39;s central achievement was to prove that it is the development of the productive forces - of man&#39;s productive capabilities and his mastery of nature - that moves humanity forward. Classes struggle only when the relationships of production of the particular epoch restrain the development of the productive forces.

&#39;And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and the bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove... that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production.&#39; (Marx&#39;s italics)

You truncated that quote: to leave out the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism.

And you&#39;re committing a standard academic Marxological mistake here: seeing Marx&#39;s theoretical contributions as the main thing about him. Yes, that quote sums up his theoretical contributions. But what the Marxologists never realize is that Marx was an activist before he was a theorist.


But you&#39;ve missed one of my central points: that our environment is - from a human perspective - in better shape today than it has ever been in the history of man&#39;s existence on earth.

Contrary to Green bullshit, the world has never been a more suitable place for human inhabitation than it is today. The main, key, fundamental reason for this is economic development.

History suggests that the better developed we are, the better equiped we are in dealing with environmental threats - hunger, disease, earthquakes, heatwaves, storms, etc. And this suggests that we should continue to pursue economic development, to massively increase it, more evenly and more widely, and never to restrain it.

Economic development is good, therefore we should never restrain it? Another logical fallacy.

Economic development is good, but it&#39;s not the only good. Therefore it&#39;s sometimes necessary to do things that unfortunately slow economic growth - to serve other purposes.

If that wasn&#39;t true, we&#39;d have to oppose minimum wage laws and anything else that limits profit, because they do in fact slow economic growth under capitalism.

Environmental restrictions do too - but they can still be necessary for other reasons.

Yes, "the better developed we are, the better equiped we are in dealing with environmental threats". It&#39;s still necessary to take action to deal with those threats - which the profit motive won&#39;t do. Also Stalinist bureaucrats who put maximizing production over everything else won&#39;t do it. History proves that.

You mention various local environmental threats, but leave out more global ones. Like, say, global climate change, which has all kinds of human and economic consequences. Capitalism won&#39;t deal with it. It won&#39;t be easy to deal with, and necessary regulations will have consequnces on production. But the consequences of not dealing with it are worse.

[Severian]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 21, 2007 09:07 pm
Do you know fucking anything about GM crops?
Do you? I&#39;d suggest if all you know about a subject comes from advocacy groups on one side of an issue, it&#39;s likely you know less than nothing about it.

There&#39;s nothing inherently harmful about GM crops. There is a problem with capitalist control of seeds and other inputs needed by working farmers - which is true of any agricultural technology, there&#39;s nothing special about GM seeds in this respect.

The answer, then, is not to oppose the technology, but to oppose the capitalist control.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
This is empty rhetoric, and i sincerely doubt that you know what the hell you&#39;re going on about.

As a matter of fact, I do. Read Hardt and Negri&#39;s Empire and get back to me. Thanks for your healthy concern, though.


This is because the amount of time that a worker works in capitalist society is determined by the class struggle.

No denying that. Or to the fact that it&#39;s entirely irrelevant to what I&#39;m saying, which is that "leisure time" in capitalism is still part of the mechanism. As Bob Black puts it:

"The only thing "free" about so-called free time is that it doesn&#39;t cost the boss anything. Free time is mostly devoted to getting ready for work, going to work, returning from work, and recovering from work. Free time is a euphemism for the peculiar way labor as a factor of production not only transports itself at its own expense to and from the workplace but assumes primary responsibility for its own maintenance and repair. Coal and steel don&#39;t do that. Lathes and typewriters don&#39;t do that. But workers do." (The Abolition of Work)

Not that this has anything to do with your constant demonizing anything that concerns itself with the environment as "primitivism."

[QUOTE]Instead of throwing a tantrum like a spoilt little schoolgirl who didn&#39;t get her way]

Sexism sucks.

Damn it, I broke my own rule. Ah well.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+January 22, 2007 12:23 am--> (Young Stupid Radical @ January 22, 2007 12:23 am)
Vanguard1917
It might not matter to western middle class snobs, but workers actually like having more time off work.

I&#39;m a worker, I&#39;m a Wobbly, not a "middle class snob" and you&#39;re a dumbshit. [/b]
And are you seriously claiming you don&#39;t care how much time you have off work? You wouldn&#39;t care if your boss took all your weekends away?

[YSR]

Of course I&#39;d be pissed. But that&#39;s not my point. Again, I like having time off&#33; Yay&#33; It&#39;s great&#33;

But in a capitalist world, even "time off" is still a part of the capitalist paradigm. For as much time as the labor movement has fought to get more leisure time, capitalism has been molding itself in new ways to deal with the problem of additional time off. For instance, in the "first world," our societies have been transformed into "consumer societies" just for this reason. With more time off, we might, heavens to Betsy, actually do things that challenge the all-encompassing ideology of capitalism. But by making us into consumers, they make sure that we don&#39;t break out of the system during our leisure time.

Free time is still dead time in a late capitalist society. The spectacle is the perfection of capitalism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:51 pm

Do you know fucking anything about GM crops?
Do you? I&#39;d suggest if all you know about a subject comes from advocacy groups on one side of an issue, it&#39;s likely you know less than nothing about it.

There&#39;s nothing inherently harmful about GM crops. [/quote]
Did I say there was? No. I merely pointed out that GM crops are very harmful to peasants across the third world, and even smaller first world farmers.

Of course, it also depends on what sort of GM we&#39;re talking about here. There are a number of concerns that I don&#39;t think have been adequately addressed, whether willfully or just because we haven&#39;t had enough time to see the results.


There is a problem with capitalist control of seeds and other inputs needed by working farmers - which is true of any agricultural technology, there&#39;s nothing special about GM seeds in this respect.

Well, most plants can&#39;t be made to not reproduce and thereby force farmers to keep going back to the company that provides the seeds... I&#39;d say GM seeds are special in that respect.


The answer, then, is not to oppose the technology, but to oppose the capitalist control.

I didn&#39;t oppose any technology, did I?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 22, 2007 06:59 pm
But in a capitalist world, even "time off" is still a part of the capitalist paradigm.
Whatever that means, if anything.


For as much time as the labor movement has fought to get more leisure time, capitalism has been molding itself in new ways to deal with the problem of additional time off.

So you agree it is a problem for them.


For instance, in the "first world," our societies have been transformed into "consumer societies" just for this reason. With more time off, we might, heavens to Betsy, actually do things that challenge the all-encompassing ideology of capitalism.

Yes: less time at work potentially means more time for working people to engage in politics, to educate ourselves, etc. Of course, people use this time as they choose, so some will use it simply on entertainment or if you like "consuming". So be it.


But by making us into consumers, they make sure that we don&#39;t break out of the system during our leisure time.

Free time is still dead time in a late capitalist society. The spectacle is the perfection of capitalism.

Oh. Pomo anti-consumerism. "The spectacle". Whatever.

Though I gotta say I don&#39;t see anything progressive in telling working people to consume less; leave all that belt-tightening stuff to the bosses.

And if you think consumerism can "make sure" what people do, that sounds a lot like thinking most people are sheep.

And most of all: if all this pomo anti-consumerism stuff makes you dismiss the importance of the demand for a shorter workweek, it&#39;s definitely an obstacle to the working-class movement. That demand&#39;s important:
1. It&#39;s a fight to reduce the intensity of our exploitation at work - more time for us - less for producing surplus-value for the bosses.

2. It&#39;s directed against unemployment - more workers to do the same amount of work.

I don&#39;t really care about any talk about "paradigms" or "dead time" or "the spectacle" or other postmodernist mumbo-jumbo, as long as it doesn&#39;t get in the way of these real concerns. But once it does...it&#39;s reactionary crap, that&#39;s all there is to it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 08:44 pm
Well, most plants can&#39;t be made to not reproduce and thereby force farmers to keep going back to the company that provides the seeds... I&#39;d say GM seeds are special in that respect.
No, actually, that&#39;s true of ordinary hybrid seeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed) as well.

And more broadly, it&#39;s true of other agricultural inputs: fertilizers, pesticides, tractors: they all have to be bought from capitalist companies, and increase working farmers&#39; dependence on those capitalist companies.

Nevertheless, communists don&#39;t oppose technology that increases food production, or other production, and is raising the standard of living of humanity: communists oppose capitalist control of technology and the means of production.


I didn&#39;t oppose any technology, did I?

You said GM crops are harmful. No, capitalist control of GM, and other technology, is harmful.

[Vanguard1917]

Severian:

But you haven&#39;t backed up the implication that Greens are primarily responsible for the continued prevalence of malaria in the Third World.

Was it not pressure from the Greens that led to the effective banning of DDT?

I don&#39;t know what &#39;primarily responsible&#39; means. But if it wasn&#39;t for the Green movement, millions of deaths would have been prevented. For that, they are responsible and need to be held to account.

The Vatican is not &#39;primarily responsible&#39; for AIDS in Africa. But if it advocated restrictions on the supply of condoms to Africans and was successful, and if these restrictions gave way to an increased prevalence of the disease, they would be responsible for this increased prevalence.

Interestingly, both the Vatican and the Greens base their arguments on irrationalism - one is of the religious kind and the other is of the secular kind.


One, it doesn&#39;t dismiss the health and environmental dangers of DDT

DDT is neither dangerous to human health nor to humanity&#39;s natural environment. Anti-DDT sentiment is not based on science. Its bible is a bullshit 1962 book called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. What does that tell you?


(And let&#39;s not forget there are other preventable diseases which kill millions there.)

Yes, but malaria is key amongst them. It brings misery to the lives of many millions of people every year in the world&#39;s poorest countries.

The Green movement is responsible, more directly than you may think, for the manslaughter of millions of the world&#39;s poor. They are a danger to humanity and need to be seen as such. They are one of the most disgusting products of contemporary capitalist stagnation.


A bit more evidence that you&#39;re doing a bit of a straw man here: "Most environmental groups don&#39;t object to DDT where it is used appropriately and is necessary to fight malaria"

Yes, this is a recent development. The leaders of most mainstream Green pressure groups (like Greenpeace and WWF) have seemingly softened their position on DDT - in pretty much the same way that the Vatican has softened its position on condoms.

But as long as the use of DDT is subject to qualifications, which are to be imposed by international laws, the countries of the world that need DDT the most will always face restrictions and they will never reap the full benefits of DDT-use.


This is not a minor point: who is the main enemy. Who has social power?

This is my point. We must not see the Green movement as though it&#39;s somehow counterposed to capitalism. If we look beneath the &#39;anti-capitalist&#39; rhetoric that they might sometimes employ, the contemporary Green movement is actually very much a contemporary capitalist movement.

It is a product of contemporary capitalist stagnation. It rationalises and legitimises the nature of today&#39;s economic stagnation. It says, &#39;it doesn&#39;t matter that capitalism is not giving way to enough economic growth, because it&#39;s not economic growth that we need anyway. We need less production and consumption. We need less towns and cities. We need less factories, cars, roads, airports and airplanes.&#39; And so on and so forth. In short, Greens make legitimate the shortcomings of today&#39;s capitalism - that it lacks the dynamism to provide needed development around the world.

Contrast this position with the position of previous, genuine anti-capitalists. Those in the Marxist tradition always said that we need to end capitalism because it stands in the way of economic progress. We said that the lack of economic development is the source of human misery. And this is why the Marxist position was such a danger to the capitalist system: we exposed the limitations of capitalism, mobilised the masses against it, and thus conflicted with the capitalist system.

The Green movement does not conflict with the status quo; it justifies it. In other words, it is not merely that the Green movement is harmonious in relation to capitalism, it actually and actively provides the capitalist system with a convenient excuse for its current lack of dynamism and its stagnant nature. Therefore, it&#39;s inherently reactionary.


And you&#39;re committing a standard academic Marxological mistake here: seeing Marx&#39;s theoretical contributions as the main thing about him. Yes, that quote sums up his theoretical contributions. But what the Marxologists never realize is that Marx was an activist before he was a theorist

I wouldn&#39;t say that Marx was &#39;an activist before he was a theorist&#39;. I would say that he paid as much attention to advancing communist theory as he paid to advancing the real life communist movement. Marx was the personification of the dialectical unity of theory and action. This can be said of all the great revolutionaries of the working class movement.

An important problem today for the left is the poverty of its theory. Like Marxists used to say: theory without action is futile, but action without theory is blind.

Without the theoretical struggle, you have unchallenged practical opportunism - which is what&#39;s happening today.


Economic development is good, therefore we should never restrain it?

Economic progress is the source of human progress. Therefore if we want unrestrained human progress, we need unrestrained economic progress. We want to end capitalism in order to remove the restraints that it places on the development of the forces of production. There&#39;s no &#39;logical fallacy&#39; in that.


If that wasn&#39;t true, we&#39;d have to oppose minimum wage laws and anything else that limits profit, because they do in fact slow economic growth under capitalism.

We fight for minimum wage laws in the more general fight against capitalism - not because we want to restrain production. In fact, we fight capitalism precisely because we do not want restrained production.


You mention various local environmental threats, but leave out more global ones. Like, say, global climate change, which has all kinds of human and economic consequences. Capitalism won&#39;t deal with it. It won&#39;t be easy to deal with, and necessary regulations will have consequnces on production. But the consequences of not dealing with it are worse.

I dealt with the climate change problem, a couple of posts up, in response to the Young Stupid Radical:

&#39;And? So we should stop everything we&#39;re doing, practice restraint, be more humble in our relationships with nature, etc. - i.e. do what the Greens want us to do? Or is the way to confront natural threats is actually to do the opposite of what the Greens propose?

It is true that the temperature is increasing - by about 0.4-0.8 celsius in the last 150 years or so. But, contrary to what the Greens think, global warming is not even close to being the most important problem facing the world today. The single most important problem facing the world today is the problem of economic underdevelopment. This is the problem that brings misery to the lives of billions of human beings. It is the problem which holds humanity back and does not allow us to realise our true creative potential.

If such climate trends continue, they certainly can have negative consequences for humanity. But humanity as it exists now; i.e. we do not know that a change in climate will be a significant problem for human beings in, say, 100 years from now. If we have the kind of economic development that we need, human beings in the year 2107 should be in a much better position to deal with natural threats like climate change. Just like we&#39;re in a much better position today to deal with natural threats than we were in 1907 - due to the reality of economic development.

As the Greens like pointing out, we need to act now for the sake of future generations. That&#39;s true. We need to act now and end capitalism with the aim of bringing about a kind of economic progress that humanity has not yet come close to witnessing. That is how we secure the wellbeing of future generations of human beings.&#39;

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:54 pm
Nevertheless, communists don&#39;t oppose technology that increases food production, or other production, and is raising the standard of living of humanity: communists oppose capitalist control of technology and the means of production.


I didn&#39;t oppose any technology, did I?

You said GM crops are harmful. No, capitalist control of GM, and other technology, is harmful.
Well, I think whether or not certain GM crops themselves are harmful or not is still up for debate, at least outside of the circles where people are making money off them. We simply haven&#39;t had a chance to study the long term effects of them (bad science...), and they&#39;ve already destroyed a number of non-GM crop types simply through pollen mixing.

[chimx]

What was that GM corn that killed off all those butterflys by mistake? Opps.

[Vanguard1917]

I think whether or not certain GM crops themselves are harmful or not is still up for debate, at least outside of the circles where people are making money off them.

GM products have been consumed in the US for several years by millions of people. Yet there are no cases of adverse effects on health. There is no evidence whatsoever that it&#39;s dangerous to human health. That&#39;s the simple fact.


What was that GM corn that killed off all those butterflys by mistake? Opps.

Is that some kind of sick joke? GM technology has the potential to solve the problem of human hunger that has brought misery to the lives of human beings throughout our existence - and all your misanthropic mind can think about is the effect that it has on insects?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:36 am
GM products have been consumed in the US for several years by millions of people. Yet there are no cases of adverse effects on health. There is no evidence whatsoever that it&#39;s dangerous to human health. That&#39;s the simple fact.
Oh, shit, wow, SEVERAL years? Damn&#33; Excuse me...

No, really, that isn&#39;t very fucking long at all when we&#39;re talking about scientific study. Furthermore, whether there are health impacts or not is unknown because there exist no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food and there are very few animal tests. The only people really doing any sort of tests are the people manufacturing the GM foods, and their studies are pretty suspect, at best.

So, no, it is not simple fact.


Is that some kind of sick joke? GM technology has the potential to solve the problem of human hunger that has brought misery to the lives of human beings throughout our existence

Sigh... how many times am I going to have to repeat that WE HAVE THAT POTENTIAL RIGHT NOW WITHOUT GM CROPS- THE PROBLEM IS CAPITALISM NOT CROPS before it works its way into your head? And do you really think that with GM crops, the capitalists will try to end human hunger, given what I just said? Here&#39;s a hint: FUCK NO.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Vanguar[email protected] 24, 2007 02:36 pm

What was that GM corn that killed off all those butterflys by mistake? Opps.

Is that some kind of sick joke? GM technology has the potential to solve the problem of human hunger that has brought misery to the lives of human beings throughout our existence - and all your misanthropic mind can think about is the effect that it has on insects?
Its an example of how human ignorance surrounding technological developments can have severe consequences on our ecosystems. If you can only think of things in anthropocentric terms, than at least bare in mind that we are part of the ecosystem and rely heavily on it remaining healthy. noob.

[robbo203]

According to Vanguard1917

"The number one cause of humanity&#39;s misery is, and always has been, material scarcity. All of the other ills of society stem from this source. Marxists have always understood this. And so have, i don&#39;t mind admitting, many anarchists.

The productive forces of society need to develop enormously in order for humanity to overcome the historic problem of material scarcity once and for all. Capitalist relations of production stand in the way of this development and therefore need to be smashed."

This may possibly be a misreading of the marxist position (or I possibly may be misreading your position). We already have the technological potential to produce enough for all (although capitalism increasingly exerts a constaint in the realisation of this potential) and in this sense it is not quite true to say that the productive forces need to be developed enormously. What is needed to do away with capitalism and to put the productive forces on a communist basis in order for the potential for abundance to be realised.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "develop" - do you mean increased output or increased productivity (the ratio of inputs to output)?

On another point I don&#39;t really agree with your comments about economic growth. Do you know what economic growth means? It is anything that adds monetary value to GDP. If I dug a hole and filled it in again and was paid a wage to do this I would have added to GDP but what would I have achieved in real terms: nothing

The capitalist buying and selling system is replete with examples of economic activities that contribute absolutely nothing in themselves to human welfare but contribute to GDP : banking, stockbroking, insurance, tax consultancies, wage departments and a thousand and one other activities. These all use up huge amounts of labour and resources and by some estimates account for 50-60% of all economic activity in the formal sector of most industrialised nations yet all this activity is totally unproductive from the standpoint of human welfare; it is only necessary to oil the wheels of capitalism. Your indiscriminate support for the ideology of economic growth completely overlooks all this...

Communism will be a stateless moneyless society of free access to goods and services and volunteer labour. All of the socially wasteful activities I have cited above will completely disappear meaning that we can redirect huge amounts of labour and resources to socially productive ends. In this respect we can greatly increase the socially useful output of industry AND at the same time reduce the deleterious impact of industrial activity on the environment.

Mimd you, if you think the environment does not matter and that we can just steamroll over environmental considerations then you are living in a fools paradise . I might also note that this was certainly not the view of Marx and Engels who were pretty clear that we evade the problem of environmental despoilation at our peril

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/