Unabomber's manifesto

[Dimentio]

http://editions-hache.com/essais/kaczynski/kaczynski2.html

I was thinking that we could use this as a foundation to criticise Kaczynski's primitive primitivist philosophy, which is actually quite influential in the USA and Canada, through the Earth Liberation Front (the largest domestic terrorist group in North America).

We should discuss the underlying weak spots and self-contradictions of Kaczynski, but also spot where he might have a point.

[Pirate Utopian]

I once read a small excerpt from it where he imagines the elite killing everyone because they have machines.
Paranoid 1984-stuff.

[Dimentio]

I've read the whole.

It's more than Paranoid 1984 stuff.

[Vanguard1917]

Kaczynski (the 'Unabomber') took his cue from the anti-development thinking in mainstream Western environmentalism.

Ron Arnold, the bourgeois libertarian critic of environmentalism, wrote an interesting article about this in Living Marxism magazine back in 1998 (A darker shade of green (http://web.archive.org/web/20000305072754/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM108/LM108_Unabomber.html)).

Like he correctly observed:


Environmental organisations, even those that do not condone violence, flatter themselves as 'progressive' and 'leftist' for wanting to save the planet. However, idealising primitive societies, promoting the re-wilding of existing development, and recommending that we return to the bare subsistence of the Late Neolithic is hardly revolutionary. In fact, environmentalism is so far in the other direction that even the words 'conservative' and 'reactionary' are not adequate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As you take your cue from Exxon...

[bcbm]

Ted is not a primitivist, nor is his brand of anti-industrialism a predominant force or inspiration for either the mainstream, radical or direct action parts of the environmental movement. A few kids here and there might pick some choice quotes, or romanticize his actions a bit, but he isn't a mainstream force by any means. When even the editors of Green Anarchy think you're full of shit, you're nothing.

[More Fire for the People]

The ELF is neither primitivist nor anti-industrialist. Would you care to challenge the observation that people are happier under tribal-communal societies? Or is our pursuit of communalism not in your interest?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23, 2007 12:27 am
Would you care to challenge the observation that people are happier under tribal-communal societies? Or is our pursuit of communalism not in your interest?
I don't know what 'communalism' is. I want communism - a higher stage of historical development, where humanity's productive capabilities are developed to an unprecedented degree.

If people were 'happier under tribal-communal societies', that's a kind of happiness that i certainly am not after - what with all that hunting and gathering all day.


A few kids here and there might pick some choice quotes, or romanticize his actions a bit, but he isn't a mainstream force by any means.

He is not a mainstream force. But i would argue that mainstream forces inspired his actions.

[Zurdito]

Would you care to challenge the observation that people are happier under tribal-communal societies?

I challenge it. Where's your proof?

[obsolete discourse]

I don't know what 'communalism' is. I want communism - a higher stage of historical development, where humanity's productive capabilities are developed to an unprecedented degree.

I'm pretty sure the use of the term communism by Marx was in reference at least to: commune, living in commune, community, communalism...etc. We could get into the latin roots if we want or perhaps check etymonline. Eitherway, "to want communism" would by definition mean a desire for community and communalism--total sharing or whatever.

What does "...where humanity's productive capabilities are developed to an unprecedented degree" even mean? I utter communism as the abolition of the very concept of production. And I think that any amount of productive capabilities, that are in the future, would by definition also be have a degree unprecedented--becuase they are currently unknown and can be imagined to be anything. That's a rhetorical device and it means nothing.

TK, beyond anything else fails to inspire us becuase he acted inside of the current conditions of the Western Individual success/martyr narrartive--acting out a theatrics of rebellion, but all to similar to Jesus and politics alike. Certainly, his acts had an impact and continue to--his analysis of the impact of industrialism made headlines or whatever becuase he got his bomber on. However, he misses the mark He looks at the situation, even with a very scientific and materialist eye, and then expresses another politics, even while critiqing it. He merits more than a glance, but he does'nt so much contribute to a counter-narrative. So as theory goes, I'm not sure why he's really interesting...Acts? yeh sort of...

It's strange however, that he's some sort of sacred cow--to be murdered or defended. The Left rushes to denounce him and call him anti-PC or whatever, and in a second breath defend Stalin. The Right, whoever they are, can only find some fringe weirdo "national anarchists" quoting him. However a lot of the US probably actually read him (New York Times, Washingpost, The New Yorker...etc). And they did'nt seem motivated or particularly phased really. Why is though, that radical politics finds him so alluring and fascinating? What is so peculiar or outrageous about his manifesto that causes such a scandal? And why is it attributed to Radical Ecology as a whole?

[apathy maybe]

Two things, the ELF is considered the largest domestic terrorist organisation in the USA. But that simply means that the word 'terrorist' actually means fuck all. They don't target people.

Secondly,
Originally posted by Ignorant1917
If people were 'happier under tribal-communal societies', that's a kind of happiness that i certainly am not after - what with all that hunting and gathering all day.
If you look at anthropologists reports on hunter-gather societies, you will find that leisure time was actually greater then in present day capitalism.
People didn't have to hunt or gather everyday to survive. Indeed, they often got by with only a few hours work a day.

And once more your logic is flawed with regard to all environmentalists wanting primitivism. Indeed, that quote from "Living Marxism" provides the same illogic.

You (and the quote) make the link between environmental organisations and primitivists, even though there is no real link!

How is "wanting to save the planet", "idealising primitive societies"? Indeed, most environmentalists I know support industrialisation because of the obvious problems in "primitive" societies. The Sahara Desert wasn't created using machines after all, but was still created by humans (or with the intervention of humans at least). Or we could look at Australia, what I've read says that the Australian environment was drastically changed from a wetter, more 'jungley' continent, to a dryer continent with the introduction of fire farming by the Aboriginal people. And Aboriginal society before the European invasion is generally (though not all parts) considered to be "primitive".

Hopefully you will read the above and realise that you are parroting a complete lot of shit.


As to the 'Manifesto', I really can't be fucked reading it. People who have read it, that I've talked to, say it isn't really worth the effort. Thus I don't bother.

[Vanguard1917]

What does "...where humanity's productive capabilities are developed to an unprecedented degree" even mean? I utter communism as the abolition of the very concept of production. And I think that any amount of productive capabilities, that are in the future, would by definition also be have a degree unprecedented--becuase they are currently unknown and can be imagined to be anything. That's a rhetorical device and it means nothing.

From a materialist, Marxist perspective, communism becomes necessary because the relations of production of the capitalist epoch come to restrain the development of the productive forces of society. In other words, capitalism is a fetter on human progress - which Marxists see as being dependent on material progress. The very precondition for communism - as understood by Marxists - is the massive and unrestrained development of humanity's productive capabilities.

The logic of the environmentalists (and i don't mean obscure 'primitivists', but mainstream environmentalists, who explicitly call for reductions in production and consumption) is directly opposite to that of Marxists.

Of course, one may choose to envisage 'communism' as being like some kind of extended version of a 1970s hippy commune. That's fine. But Marxists certainly don't see it like that.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:02 pm

What does "...where humanity's productive capabilities are developed to an unprecedented degree" even mean? I utter communism as the abolition of the very concept of production. And I think that any amount of productive capabilities, that are in the future, would by definition also be have a degree unprecedented--becuase they are currently unknown and can be imagined to be anything. That's a rhetorical device and it means nothing.

From a materialist, Marxist perspective, communism becomes necessary because the relations of production of the capitalist epoch come to restrain the development of the productive forces of society. In other words, capitalism is a fetter on human progress - which Marxists see as being dependent on material progress. The very precondition for communism - as understood by Marxists - is the massive and unrestrained development of humanity's productive capabilities.

The logic of the environmentalists (and i don't mean obscure 'primitivists', but mainstream environmentalists, who explicitly call for reductions in production and consumption) is directly opposite to that of Marxists.

Of course, one may choose to envisage 'communism' as being like some kind of extended version of a 1970s hippy commune. That's fine. But Marxists certainly don't see it like that.
so what you're saying is that mainstream environmentalists aren't marxists?

who'd have thought.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:55 pm
so what you're saying is that mainstream environmentalists aren't marxists?

who'd have thought.
Not only are they not Marxists, they stand in direct opposition to Marxism. Thus the demands of Marxism and those of the environmental movement are irreconcilable.

[Killer Enigma]

I was thinking that we could use this as a foundation to criticise Kaczynski's primitive primitivist philosophy, which is actually quite influential in the USA and Canada, through the Earth Liberation Front (the largest domestic terrorist group in North America).
"[Q]uite influential" means nothing.

Moreover, you wish to critique a "primitive primitivist philosophy"? Now what did you really mean to say?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 24, 2007 05:21 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 24, 2007 05:21 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 08:55 pm
so what you're saying is that mainstream environmentalists aren't marxists?

who'd have thought.
Not only are they not Marxists, they stand in direct opposition to Marxism. Thus the demands of Marxism and those of the environmental movement are irreconcilable. [/b]
so are the demnds of marxists and any non-marxists, eventually. the operative word being "eventually": we can still work with non-marxists

However I believe a workers state would be more environemntally friendly than a capitalist one.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:04 pm
However I believe a workers state would be more environemntally friendly than a capitalist one.
This depends wholly on what you mean by 'environmentally friendly'. For example, if we define 'environmentally friendly' as being opposed to biotechnology, nuclear power, vivisection, the expansion of air travel/human mobility, etc., and as being in support of reductions in production and consumption worldwide - i.e. if we go by the environmentalist definition of 'environmentally friendly' - then a workers' state governed by progressive, Marxist principles most certainly will be less 'environmentally friendly' than capitalism.

However, if by 'environmentally friendly' we mean not dumping industrial waste with no regard for human beings, then, of course, socialist society - which is consciously planned by working class people - will, almost by definition, be more environmentally friendly than capitalist society.

There is a very definite line between the irrationalism of the environmental movement and practical measures to make our environmental surroundings as clean as possible.


so are the demnds of marxists and any non-marxists, eventually. the operative word being "eventually": we can still work with non-marxists

As i said, the demands of the environmental movement stand in direct opposition to the demands of Marxism. As a result, rather than in alliance, we often find our goals in direct conflict with the goals of environmental movement. Hence the necessity of a struggle against the environmental movement.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 24, 2007 08:58 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 24, 2007 08:58 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:04 pm
However I believe a workers state would be more environemntally friendly than a capitalist one.
This depends wholly on what you mean by 'environmentally friendly'. For example, if we define 'environmentally friendly' as being opposed to biotechnology, nuclear power, vivisection, the expansion of air travel/human mobility, etc., and as being in support of reductions in production and consumption worldwide - i.e. if we go by the environmentalist definition of 'environmentally friendly' - then a workers' state governed by progressive, Marxist principles most certainly will be less 'environmentally friendly' than capitalism.

However, if by 'environmentally friendly' we mean not dumping industrial waste with no regard for human beings, then, of course, socialist society - which is consciously planned by working class people - will, almost by definition, be more environmentally friendly than capitalist society.

There is a very definite line between the irrationalism of the environmental movement and practical measures to make our environmental surroundings as clean as possible.


so are the demnds of marxists and any non-marxists, eventually. the operative word being "eventually": we can still work with non-marxists

As i said, the demands of the environmental movement stand in direct opposition to the demands of Marxism. As a result, rather than in alliance, we often find our goals in direct conflict with the goals of environmental movement. Hence the necessity of a struggle against the environmental movement. [/b]
Ah right I've just seen your user-title. I'd say your vision of marxism is the problem here, as opposed to the environmental movement. I've known others in the movement who fetishize technology too. They don't seem to grasp the point that capitalism long ago gave us the technological ability to run a global socialist economy, and that now the overriding concern is to smash the system.

Expanding airports will ultimately just help the airline companies in their quest for greater profits. We have to place ourselves in direct opposition to all capitalist expansion as it is now redundant, we're in the phase of decadent over-accumulation by an elite. We need to strike at the heart of the capitalist system, we need to begin now, rather than dreaming about some kind of best of both world's scenario where capitalists ease their way out of power through constantly giving us better communications and technology.

If you are serious about the revolutionary aspect of marxism as opposed to simply the side concerned with efficiency and technological progress (which we want in a workers state, but which we should not fetishize when they take place in a social context whereby they serve the ruling class) then you need to be prepared for a substantial drop in our productive capablities and technological advancement whilst we go through a revolutionary crisis. "Marxist" would-be technocrats always make me wonder if they are really prepared for that aspect of it: during a revolution, internet cables, ipods and aeroplanes may all be destroyed on a massive scale.

Of course AFTER a revolution we would need to build them back up, bu t that's a totally different situation to the one we're in now.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 24, 2007 11:21 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 24, 2007 11:21 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 08:55 pm
so what you're saying is that mainstream environmentalists aren't marxists?

who'd have thought.
Not only are they not Marxists, they stand in direct opposition to Marxism. Thus the demands of Marxism and those of the environmental movement are irreconcilable. [/b]
So, what you are telling me is that once Marxists gain power, they are going to stamp on the environment? Thats just fucking great...

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:10 pm
Expanding airports will ultimately just help the airline companies in their quest for greater profits.
This is a one-sided view. In reality, the expansion of air travel has extremely progressive implications for the working class. For one thing, it makes the world a smaller place. It makes large sections of the international proletariat more mobile. It helps make the world a less alien and more cosmopolitan place for millions of people. These are all positive developments. I would like air travel to be expanded even further - so that everyone can benefit from it, rather than just a global minority.


We have to place ourselves in direct opposition to all capitalist expansion

What we do is highlight capitalism's inability to sufficiently develop society. This means explaining that capitalism's number one defect is that it stands in the way of economic development.

Many of today's 'anti-capitalists' say the opposite of this. They say that capitalism is giving way to too much economic development, which they feel needs to be restrained. This leads to various reactionary positions, such as opposing economic development in the developing world.


during a revolution, internet cables, ipods and aeroplanes may all be destroyed on a massive scale.

Yes, and then they will be rebuilt, as you point out. We will see a kind of global economic development which mankind has as yet not come close to witnessing. What do the environmentalists think of this prospect?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:08 pm

Expanding airports will ultimately just help the airline companies in their quest for greater profits.
This is a one-sided view. In reality, the expansion of air travel has extremely progressive implications for the working class. For one thing, it makes the world a smaller place. It makes large sections of the international proletariat more mobile. It helps make the world a less alien and more cosmopolitan place for millions of people. These are all positive developments. I would like air travel to be expanded even further - so that everyone can benefit from it, rather than just a global minority.


We have to place ourselves in direct opposition to all capitalist expansion

What we do is highlight capitalism's inability to sufficiently develop society. This means explaining that capitalism's number one defect is that it stands in the way of economic development.

Many of today's 'anti-capitalists' say the opposite of this. They say that capitalism is giving way to too much economic development, which they feel needs to be restrained. This leads to various reactionary positions, such as opposing economic development in the developing world.


during a revolution, internet cables, ipods and aeroplanes may all be destroyed on a massive scale.

Yes, and then they will be rebuilt, as you point out. We will see a kind of global economic development which mankind has as yet not come close to witnessing. What do the environmentalists think of this prospect?

Expanding airports will ultimately just help the airline companies in their quest for greater profits.
This is a one-sided view. In reality, the expansion of air travel has extremely progressive implications for the working class. For one thing, it makes the world a smaller place. It makes large sections of the international proletariat more mobile. It helps make the world a less alien and more cosmopolitan place for millions of people. These are all positive developments. I would like air travel to be expanded even further - so that everyone can benefit from it, rather than just a global minority.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree, but observing the rate of oil consumption by developed economies at the expense of the third world, and the rate of discovery of new oil compared to the rate we are using up existing oil, considering the inflation that is going to hit when the US recession kicks in, when China's economy slows down and they start selling their dollars, when China's population growth drives up their demand for oil for basic industrial prouduction and living necesities, considering the growing instability in the Middle East due to imperialist scrabbling over scarce resources is placing the supply of those reosurces under threat, do you really think capitalism is going to keep providing cheap package flights for the forseeable future?

Whatever you think of environmentalists motivations (and I strongly disagree with them on many things, in fact within the left I am on the more anti-environmentalist side of the spectrum believe it or not), then don't you think you're being way to soft on capitalism when you see fossil fuel inflation etc. as being just the product of some green plot to tax workers flights? Obviously what's happening is that we are over-consuming resources, and the bourgeoisie recognises this, and finds ways to pass the onto workers. Of course we should resist that and use the unsustainable nature of our economy in realtion to our resource base to drive a wedge between the classes rather than call for cross-class reforms and "green capitalism".

However your vision of continued progress under capitalism isn't backed up by the serious analyses of what the future will hold. Unlimited airport expansion is just a dream because the resources don't exist for that, and all you would acheive would be to divert even more resources towards a small-labour aristocracy who can afoord to fly whilst further denying them to the rest of the world, and that same labour aristocracies own grand-children. I agree that only a marxist movement can be trusted to not sell-out the environmental struggle to green "reforms", but that doesn't mean that capitalism is not destroying the environment at the expense of workers.


What we do is highlight capitalism's inability to sufficiently develop society. This means explaining that capitalism's number one defect is that it stands in the way of economic development.

Many of today's 'anti-capitalists' say the opposite of this. They say that capitalism is giving way to too much economic development, which they feel needs to be restrained. This leads to various reactionary positions, such as opposing economic development in the developing world.

Right so now you are merging "anti-capitalists" and "environmentalists". This is false because the two are not the same thing. Secondly, the anti-capitalist movement is the sign of people's consciousness moving in the right direction, we shouldn't just attack them as enemies on a way which makes us look as bad as the right. The truth is that the economic development in the third world is currently only taking with one hand and giving with the other, and whilst we should celebrate that thw global working class is larger than ever etc., the fact is that now capitalism reaches to every corner in the world and we should no longer see it as progressive. To do so is to bastardise Marx. He celebrated the destruction of pre-capitalist socieities. Those socieites ahve gone now, we're just living in a constant age of restructuring markets ever more for the imperialists gain, and the destruction of capital makes workers in many parts of the third world worse off in real terms than they were 20, 30 or 50 years ago.

Obviously we should entirely dismiss the tiny number of primitivsts out there, and then argue with the anti-capitalists, by showing them that what they want; equality, social justice, sustainability etc., is best acheived through marxism. We should not have some completely sectarian attitude to them which places them basically on a par with the apologists for capitalism.


Yes, and then they will be rebuilt, as you point out. We will see a kind of global economic development which mankind has as yet not come close to witnessing. What do the environmentalists think of this prospect?

What's your point? I support Hamas and the Iraqi resistance. Obviously ONCE they've defeated their opressors, then many of them will fight against Marxism. Should I then not support them against the imperialists? Well then, the same goes for the green movement; there are certain broad issues we can agree with them on, like attacking those who profiteer from environmental damage. When those same reformists agree to conditions which pass the cost onto workers, that's where we diverge. However, we should build ont he progressive base which exists in society, as Trotsky said. :)

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:37 pm
do you really think capitalism is going to keep providing cheap package flights for the forseeable future?
In the foreseeable future, the further expansion of the air travel industry will likely go hand in hand with reduced ticket prices and more people travelling by air.


Obviously what's happening is that we are over-consuming resources

Like what?


However your vision of continued progress under capitalism isn't backed up by the serious analyses of what the future will hold.

Hang on. Where did i say that i have a 'vision of continued progress under capitalism'? My argument is precisely that capitalism cannot give way to enough economic progress.


Unlimited airport expansion is just a dream because the resources don't exist for that,

So now you're saying that air travel cannot expand because the resources aren't there. So you've shifted your argument, because before your argument was that we should oppose airport expansion because we should oppose capitalist expansion.


The truth is that the economic development in the third world is currently only taking with one hand and giving with the other, and whilst we should celebrate that thw global working class is larger than ever etc., the fact is that now capitalism reaches to every corner in the world and we should no longer see it as progressive.

Why not? You just said that 'we should celebrate that thw global working class is larger than ever'. Indeed we should. But the reason that the global working class is larger than ever is the worldwide expansion of industrial capitalism. In truth, the end of the Cold War has given capitalism some breathing space and has allowed it to expand. If capitalism today continues to give way to industrialisation and urbanisation in large parts of the world, i'm afraid you cannot simply say that it has ceased to play a progressive role.


What's your point? I support Hamas and the Iraqi resistance. Obviously ONCE they've defeated their opressors, then many of them will fight against Marxism. Should I then not support them against the imperialists? Well then, the same goes for the green movement

The same does not go for the green movement. Environmentalists are, on the whole, a conservative force in Western society.

[Zurdito]

Like what?

Like oil.



Hang on. Where did i say that i have a 'vision of continued progress under capitalism'? My argument is precisely that capitalism cannot give way to enough economic progress.

You can hold both views simultaneously. My point is that in its imperialist phase, capitalism is an overall destructive force, in a way that it was not at Marx's time.


So now you're saying that air travel cannot expand because the resources aren't there. So you've shifted your argument, because before your argument was that we should oppose airport expansion because we should oppose capitalist expansion.

I'm saying we should oppose it due to the fact that we've entered a phase of obscene over-accumulation, waste, and monopoly.

We now have the tools to defeat the capitalists, further expansion is over time just destroying capital as markets are constantly restructured to favour the imperialists, and using up the world's resources at an obscene rate to provide a profit for the minority while the poor will eventually pay the hardest price for these environmental crises and lack of resources (there is a thread on this forum showing how much was spent on war in Iraq compared to researching for alternative energy sources for example, if you search for it, anyway it was at least 100 times more spent on on Iraq) so the idea that capitalism is giving us "progress but not enough" is wrong I think, we're going through vast destruction of the capital and resources we will need in an eventual socialist society, and we need to put an end to it now.

Of course there will be times of growth and of accumulation of the working class as capitalism is in a boom, this will always happen, but you have to look at the bigger picture of what we are trading for this growth.

But yes the current economic growth is moving us closer to an eventual revolutionary situation. I don't deny that. But that doesn't mean we should cheerlead for it or brush under the carpet the damage it is also causing.

You are right that the collapse of the Soviet Union gave capitalism breathing space, though I'd say the single biggest factor has been the penetration into China. But this is a double-edged sword; Chinese demand for scarce resources terrifies the imperialist powers, and pushes up prices. This competition is what's making the US capture central Asia's oil fields urgently: and they aren't having much luck.

One way out of that would seem to be an economic slow-down in China: but this will lead to vast closures of the factories whose very over-production is what makes our cost of living so artificially cheap, and whose profits are funnelled through our credit system. On top of that, the selling off of US bonds by China would hit the currency hard and who knows it might even lose its status as tender for the oil trade. Either way, the devaluation of the dollar will be a disaster for all those cheap flights, and developed nations dependency on oil will come back to bite them when they no longer have access to an increasingly scarce resource at increasingly high prices. Plus you can see how the US is unable to take control of those oil fields it desperately needs, and how a weakening of the imperialist states economies will strengthen regimes in the region taking back control of their resources and refusing to sell them on the cheap. So it all ties in: the imperialists states over-dependence on and over-consumption of oil is going to bite them soon, and marxists should not ignore this because then we have no credibility when it happens.

I think then that it is irresponsible to encourage unlimited oil binges now, because they are at the expense of both third world populations and our future resources.


The same does not go for the green movement. Environmentalists are, on the whole, a conservative force in Western society.

Some are, but on the whole, they are simply groups who haven't correctly identified the solution to the flaws in the capitalist system which they notice, and many of whom can be won round as the borugeoisie, in the face of imminent crises, makes its true nature clear.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:56 am

Like what?

Like oil.

In what way are we 'over-consuming' oil?

And, even if we are to run out of oil in the near future, the obvious solution is to start expanding the development other sources of energy - for example, nuclear power and hydroelectric power.

Guess who're among the biggest political opponents of such development today in the West?




Hang on. Where did i say that i have a 'vision of continued progress under capitalism'? My argument is precisely that capitalism cannot give way to enough economic progress.

You can hold both views simultaneously. My point is that in its imperialist phase, capitalism is an overall destructive force, in a way that it was not at Marx's time.

It's not the case that capitalism today is merely a destructive force. If we look at the developments that have taken place in India and China in last couple of decades, it is clear that capitalism has both dynamic as well as destructive features.

Today's 'anti-capitalists' in the environmental movement oppose the features of capitalism which are actually dynamic and historically progressive. They blame capitalism for giving way to too much progress.



So now you're saying that air travel cannot expand because the resources aren't there. So you've shifted your argument, because before your argument was that we should oppose airport expansion because we should oppose capitalist expansion.

I'm saying we should oppose it due to the fact that we've entered a phase of obscene over-accumulation, waste, and monopoly.

So you recognise the expansion of air travel as progressive, but you oppose it anyway?



The same does not go for the green movement. Environmentalists are, on the whole, a conservative force in Western society.

Some are, but on the whole, they are simply groups who haven't correctly identified the solution to the flaws in the capitalist system which they notice, and many of whom can be won round as the borugeoisie, in the face of imminent crises, makes its true nature clear.

If you look closely at the environmental movement, you will see that it is actually a bourgeois political movement, with its base in the Western middle class. Superficially, it may indeed present itself as a 'radical' movement. In content, however, environmentalism has much more in common with conservative and reactionary politics than it does with any progressive tradition.

[Zurdito]

In what way are we 'over-consuming' oil?

And, even if we are to run out of oil in the near future, the obvious solution is to start expanding the development other sources of energy - for example, nuclear power and hydroelectric power.

Guess who're among the biggest political opponents of such development today in the West?

Lack of investment in that comes down to the need to serve the interests of sectors tied to the oil industry and dependent on it, who only want more oil straight away, and do not have time for speculative research into other means of energy production. Such is the destructive short-term drive for profit under capitalism. It is not the greens who are hampering plans for other energy sources, they don't have that kind of power, if they did we wouldn't keep seeing more roads and cars built.

And the "expansion of airports" is neither progressive nor reactionary in itself. What matters to a marxist is the context. In this context, it wouldn't be progressive.

[Vanguard1917]

It is not the greens who are hampering plans for other energy sources, they don't have that kind of power

No. But the main arguments against nuclear power are those spread by environmentalists. The most vocal opponents of nuclear power are environmental organisations.


And the "expansion of airports" is neither progressive nor reactionary in itself. What matters to a marxist is the context. In this context, it wouldn't be progressive.

So more and more working class people being able to afford to fly isn't progressive? I would say that the greater mobility of the international proletariat - which the expansion of air travel helps facilitate - is an extremely progressive phenomenon.

[Zurdito]

No. But the main arguments against nuclear power are those spread by environmentalists. The most vocal opponents of nuclear power are environmental organisations.

Most vocal, maybe. most powerful, no. it's just that nuclear power isn;t as profitable for our bourgeoisie as oil wars, and speculating about alternatives sin't as profitable as squeezing all the profit out of oil dependant sectors right now.

taking your cue from this then, what do we decide about opposing environmentalists on a par with airline companies etc.?


So more and more working class people being able to afford to fly isn't progressive? I would say that the greater mobility of the international proletariat - which the expansion of air travel helps facilitate - is an extremely progressive phenomenon.

Yes it is, but at the rate we are going, in 50 years the proletariate will have less access to travel and not more. your user title is therefore a wish for a future society, which hardly any marxist could argue with, rather than an applicable slogan to the current situation.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:42 am
it's just that nuclear power isn;t as profitable for our bourgeoisie as oil wars
If this is the case, then the point is to attack capitalists for their lack of investment in nuclear power. Again, environmentalists do the opposite of this.


taking your cue from this then, what do we decide about opposing environmentalists on a par with airline companies etc.?

I think you're asking whether we should oppose environmentalist opponents of air travel more than we oppose the airline companies.

I see it like this. Imagine a scenario where a major pharmaceutical corporation opens a new multi-million dollar research centre for the development of a new abortion drug. Hundreds of 'pro-life' campaigners gather outside to protest.

Will you be on the side of the protestors? I certainly wouldn't. I would support the opening of this new research centre, because i would support any new development in birth control, which the opening of this new research centre might facilitate, as progressive.

This does not for a single moment mean that i support the pharmaceutical corporation itself. I will give my full support to any progressive attacks against this corporation. But i will also refuse to give my support to any reactionary attacks against the corporation.

[Zurdito]

But the point is that unlimited expansion of airports under capitalism would have negative side effects for the world's workers, because these things do cause environmental damage, and workers pay the price. A marxist has to preserve the material base of a future workers economy otherwise we are selling out our own future.

Investment into birth control would not have the same negative side effects.

I realise the wording of my original reply to you may have been confusing and I apologise for that.

Now we could argue for the capitalists to invest more in alternate forms of energy, but they will not do so on a significant scale until it's too late. What they will do is plunder existing resources with no regard for the future. When environmentalists oppose that, it does not make them reactionary, regardless of their position on nuclear power, because no matter how much we shout at the capitalists to invest in other forms of energy, they're patently not really interested in doing so. Therefore the greens opposition to nuclear power right now IMO is pretty incidental; after a revolution we would have to confront them, just like we would with any number of current allies, but right now I maintain that they are a movement we can find common ground with, and that through working together (on a principled basis by which we are open about our differences), many of them can be developed into marxists.

[Vanguard1917]

But the point is that unlimited expansion of airports under capitalism would have negative side effects for the world's workers, because these things do cause environmental damage

The benefits of air travel far outweigh the negatives.

[Ultra-Violence]

i read his manifesto i didnt think much of it really to tell you the truth BUT some thing i found very intersting about his manifesto is his stuuf about the leftist feeling defeat and being depressed cuaght my eye and the part about how revolutionarys should have large family's i thought was very intersting thats why im having 12 kids! :D jk