Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)

[Goose]

I would really appreciate it if we could could formulate an RCP (UK) and RCP (US) distinction on here.

I gather the RCP (US) are a really hopeful revolutionary movement, and good luck to them. The RCP (UK) are a right wing bunch of nutters who used to ally themselves with Marx. The history is well documented for anyone that can be arsed. I was thrown out for suggesting that, just maybe, AIDS wasn't actually invented by Thatcher and Reagan, nice though that level of conspiracy would be, and undoubtedly the US/UK reaction to this horrible disease was a hopeful one that would clear queers off the planet and put us all back 100 years in terms of personal freedoms (of any sense. I'm straight for the record so no great axe to grind per sé, tough who did invent AIDS? Served a purpose but went wrong??)

Nonetheless, even if the CIA did put it in monkeys in Africa, it went beyond their control pretty quickly, mainly through gay people, though by the mid-90s US Hispanics were the world's highest risk group.

Point is, I don't at this point and in this conversation care how it came about. It was not a punishment from god, as Thatcher, Reagan and the RCP (UK) tried to claim.

So please differentiate the US RCP if it has better ideas.

Just worth noting on the RCP level.

[Dros]

I gather the RCP (US) are a really hopeful revolutionary movement, and good luck to them.

Thanks!:)

It's sad to here about the RCP(UK). Didn't know it was like that....

[Rawthentic]

The RCP is not part of a revolutionary movement in the US.

[Devrim]

The RCP (UK) doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't done for years.

Devrim

[redwinter]

if you're interested in the line of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP,USA), i'd recommend checking out their new constitution, available online here:
http://www.revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html

i cannot say i know much of anything about this "rcp" group in britain, but if i remember correctly they used to uphold trotsky's ideas (at least when they still claimed to be marxists, which appears not to be the case now). other than a similar sounding name it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the RCP,USA.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The UK RCP were a break-away from the UK-SWP in the early 1970s. Almost immediately after they split, they split again into the RCG (TC's (formerly 'Tragic Clown') mob) and and the RCT (Revolutionary Communist Tendency), which soon after became the RCP.

They originally published the weekly paper 'The Next Step', but in the late 1980s or early 1990s began to concentrate all their efforts on producing 'Living Marxism' (a badly mis-named title, which more accurately should have been called 'Help us Kill-off Marxism'), which soon morphed into LM.

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78&page=L

They now run 'Spiked online', a site devoted to free market capitalism. Ex-comrades with whom I had many verbal battles (over their abstract propagandism, and anti-Marxist posturing) back in the 1980s now run a site that promotes the interests of big oil and big coal (VG 1917 is their spokesperson here).

LM lost a legal battle with ITN, and LM folded in 2000.

More details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4203/29/

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78&page=L

Intermittently, their supporters produce highly controversial 'documentaries' for Channel Four, the latest being the execrable 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' in March 2007.

More here:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/21/the-self-justifying-myth/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/21/distortions-falsehoods-fabrications/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/24/swindled-again/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

[Vanguard1917]

They now run 'Spiked online', a site devoted to free market capitalism.




a site that promotes the interests of big oil and big coal


Evidence for these claims? And i don't mean baseless accusations and conspiracy theories from neo-Malthusian websites or eco-loonies like George Monbiot (who recently argued that a recession would be good for Britain because living standards are too high).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917 (our very own Exxon mouthpiece):


Evidence for these claims? And i don't mean baseless accusations and conspiracy theories from neo-Malthusian websites or eco-loonies like George Monbiot (who recently argued that a recession would be good for Britain because living standards are too high).

We have been through this before. Check out my links, and respond to what they say, or belt up.

[Vanguard1917]

The accusations and conspiracy theories are laughable. As Brendan O'Neill, the editor of spiked, has argued, opponents of spiked's views, from neo-nazis to neo-malthusians, imagine-up all sorts of fantastical conspiracy theories as a way of evading having to debate them. In their attempts to dodge and shut down discussion, the conspiracy theorists are willing to sink to various lows.




Gossip dressed up as investigative journalism (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/139/)
Conspiracy theories about everything from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to spiked writers are polluting the mainstream media.

[...]

There have been a fair few articles and rumours over the past few years accusing spiked’s editor Mick Hume and managing editor Helene Guldberg, as well as contributor Frank Furedi and Institute of Ideas director Claire Fox (with whom spiked shares an office), among others, of being involved in various conspiracies headed by everyone from the Serbian government to the drugs companies. Many of the arguments made by contributors first to Living Marxism and LM and later to spiked, all of which were edited by Hume, have been challenged, not substantially or politically, but by a kind of muck-raking search for the secret financer behind the arguments. Those who oppose what some of our writers have said about Western intervention, environmentalism and free speech have not taken up the arguments head-on but rather have said, ‘Well look who’s funding them....look who they have meetings with....what do you expect?’ These attacks should be understood as part of the broader climate of conspiracy-mongering today, where robust political debate has given way to a kind of cowardly dinner-party whispering campaign about individuals’ motives or personal interests and private lives.

The commentators who have laid into spiked have one thing in common: they have not engaged with our arguments but rather have tried to dig for dirt behind the scenes. This has been the case on various issues, and has been going on since the days of LM in the late 1990s. Journalists such as George Monbiot at the Guardian - who has written the same silly article about spiked and the Institute of Ideas about five times, merely under different headlines, and who seems especially to dislike Frank Furedi - takes particular umbrage at what some of our authors have said about the environmentalist movement and the need to defend scientific and medical progress. But instead of coming out and saying that, and arguing the toss over these issues, his starting point is always to try to discover who funded such-and-such a conference or, going even lower, to point out whom Furedi is married to or whom he rubs shoulders with at conferences or dinner parties. Anyone who has seen the new film Good Night, and Good Luck will know that attempting to discredit or incriminate an individual by exposing who is in his circle of friends and acquaintances was also a preferred tactic of that maddest of conspiracy theorists, Joseph McCarthy. (This is not to plead, by the way, that spiked is the poor little victim of a contemporary form of McCarthyism. We don’t do victimhood. It is merely to point out the similarities between conspiracy-mongering then and conspiracy-mongering now.)

Furedi has even been on the receiving end of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Under the headline ‘Why Jews’ views are very bad news’, a racist website recently accused him of being involved in a conspiracy ‘dedicated to the overthrow of mainstream White society in the UK’. It asked why ‘White’ individuals including Mick Hume and Claire Fox decided to join Furedi’s ‘Jew-directed attack on the mainstream’. (Apparently it is because they come from Catholic Irish backgrounds - which will be news to Hume, if not Fox - and thus ‘feel hostility towards Protestant England, the largest and most powerful country in Britain’.)

This kind of poisonous drivel might seem a world away from liberal Monbiot’s writings about spiked and the Institute of Ideas. In fact, there is a thin line today between right-wing and left-wing conspiracy-mongering: both are concerned with uncovering secret agendas rather than having an upfront debate, and it is as nonsensical to claim that Furedi, Hume and Fox are motivated by their racial make-up as it is to say they are driven by behind-the-scenes businessmen. Indeed, this racist article quotes extensively (and favourably) from a Guardian piece on the alleged ‘Furedi cult’ and from the website of Lobbywatch, a leftish group opposed to GM technology. Here, an old-style anti-Semitic conspiracy theory meets the new-fangled liberal conspiracy-mongering, and they make spookily comfortable bedfellows.

The scurrilous nature of these kinds of attacks was brought home to me when a freelance journalist (who this week was appointed editor of the Jewish Chronicle) wrote a piece attacking an article I wrote for spiked in 2004. In Choking on the facts (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA568.htm) I revealed that the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee misled the public when it claimed that a three-year-old girl had died as a result of overeating and that her death served as a salutary lesson for a nation apparently eating itself into an early grave. In fact, as one of the doctors who had studied the girl’s condition told me, she died from a complex genetic disorder, not from simply wolfing down one too many chocolate bars.

Almost a year later, the freelance journalist attacked my article, not by challenging any of the facts in it, but by suggesting that I was part of some vast conspiracy orchestrated by the food industry to discredit the Health Select Committee. As he admitted when I had the misfortune to bump into him at a media lunch a few months later, he had no reason to doubt that the content of my article was true but rather wanted to know why I wrote it. He seemed less interested in the public argument I made about this three-year-old girl and the obesity panic more broadly, than in theorising about mine and others’ mindsets and our alleged links with the food industry when we wrote and published the piece.

This kind of conspiracy-mongering serves to close down debate. It is a way of discrediting individuals and their views without having to engage with the substance of their arguments. It is the last refuge of the coward. Investigative journalism was traditionally concerned with exposing a public figure’s words and deeds to the harsh light of truth. Today, some investigative journalists are little more than glorified gossip columnists, pointing out that Public Figure A once had dinner with Businessman B and received funding from Corporation Boss C, and therefore is suspicious and untrustworthy. They are no long hunters of facts or askers of challenging political questions, but rather are detectives of the mind, always trying to work out what someone was thinking (and who paid him to think it) when he did what he did.

If you want a public debate, come on then. If you want to continue speculating about what’s going on inside our heads, bedrooms and boardrooms - get a life.

[Dros]

The RCP is not part of a revolutionary movement in the US.

I guess that's true in your little world.

[DancingLarry]

The RCP is not part of a revolutionary movement in the US.

It's impossible to say one way or the other, given that there is no meaningful revolutionary movement in the US, with or without the RCP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGulfOil:


The accusations and conspiracy theories are laughable. As Brendan O'Neill, the editor of spiked, has argued, opponents of spiked's views, from neo-nazis to neo-malthusians, imagine-up all sorts of fantastical conspiracy theories as a way of evading having to debate them. In their attempts to dodge and shut down discussion, the conspiracy theorists are willing to sink to various lows.

Who alleged a 'conspiracy'? And thanks for that irrelevant, self-serving article.

[Vanguard1917]

Who alleged a 'conspiracy'?


The people in those links you posted: people who can't challenge spiked's arguments through arguments of their own, and so resort to conspiracy theories and gossip-mongering. A bit like yourself, i might add.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGulfOil:


The people in those links you posted.

Where exactly?


people who can't challenge spiked's arguments through arguments of their own, and so resort to conspiracy theories and gossip-mongering. A bit like yourself, i might add

Not so; Spiked's arguments are almost identical to those of any common-or-garden free-marketteer or spokesperson for Big Oil, and so are 'answered' all the time by those on the left -- a bit unlike you I might add.

[KurtFF8]

It's impossible to say one way or the other, given that there is no meaningful revolutionary movement in the US, with or without the RCP.

My thoughts exactly, so the post you were quoting is true, but not in the way the poster meant it to be.

[Vanguard1917]

Not so; Spiked's arguments are almost identical to those of any common-or-garden free-marketteer or spokesperson for Big Oil

Name me a single article by a spiked writer in support of the free market or an oil company. It's a very straightforward request. Either provide the evidence to support your claims or, to be blunt, shut the fuck up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Name me a single article by a spiked writer in support of the free market or an oil company. It's a very straightforward request. Either provide the evidence to support your claims or, to be blunt, shut the fuck up.

Of course, the mob at Spiked maybe idiots, but they are not stupid. The way they promote free market capitlism and Big Oil is by attacking those on the left who threaten the interest of the 'free market' and Big Oil -- such as those who highlight anthropogenic global warming (the topic about which you post more entires here than anything else), or or who oppose genetically modified crops.

In that way, of course, dupes like you can pretend to be of the left, all the while promoting the interests of capital.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Isn't someone from the RCP now an adviser to Boris Johnson as well?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yep; details here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-rcp-offshoot-t79519/index.html?p=1154769

See also here:

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2008/06/17/whitewashing/

[Vanguard1917]

VG1917:
Of course, the mob at Spiked maybe idiots, but they are not stupid. The way they promote free market capitlism and Big Oil is by attacking those on the left who threaten the interest of the 'free market' and Big Oil .

People like George Monbiot and Zac Goldsmith, who think that the problem with capitalism is that it makes living standards too high and gives way to too much economic and technological development? Any astute Marxist knows full well that such arguments do not so much 'threaten' capitalism as create greater conformity to it. If further economic progress is out of the question, what's the point of changing the system which restrains industrial development?


such as those who highlight anthropogenic global warming

You mean the ruling class and its political representatives? They're threatening the interests of capitalism, are they? Because it's they who are currently 'highlighting anthropogenic global warming' more enthusiastically than anyone else.



or or who oppose genetically modified crops


Why should we oppose GM technology? Since when have Marxists been opposing scientific advances which have the potential to help liberate mankind from the threat of hunger?

Environmentalism: the anti-capitalism of fools.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGulfOil1917PerLitre:


People like George Monbiot and Zac Goldsmith, who think that the problem with capitalism is that it makes living standards too high and gives way to too much economic and technological development? Any astute Marxist knows full well that such arguments do not so much 'threaten' capitalism as create greater conformity to it. If further economic progress is out of the question, what's the point of changing the system which restrains industrial development?

Give me an honest, petty-bourgeois opponent of Big Oil etc (like Monbiot) compard to its covert supporters at Spiked any day.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_liar.gif


You mean the ruling class and its political representatives? They're threatening the interests of capitalism, are they? Because it's they who are currently 'highlighting anthropogenic global warming' more enthusiastically than anyone else.

One section of the ruling class has one set of interests, whereas the other side of the ruling-class that you lot support (Exxon, BP, Shell, Gulf, Monsanto, etc) have other priorities.


Why should we oppose GM technology? Since when have Marxists been opposing scientific advances which have the potential to help liberate mankind from the threat of hunger?

BDBBDBEEE, that's all ffffolks from our very own Monsanto Mouth-Piece....

[Vanguard1917]

Give me an honest, petty-bourgeois opponent of Big Oil etc (like Monbiot)


An honest environmentalist like Monbiot who is an opponent, not of 'Big Oil', but of ordinary working class people:

'I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises. I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes.'
- George Monbiot



One section of the ruling class has one set of interests, whereas the other side of the ruling-class that you lot support (Exxon, BP, Shell, Gulf, Monsanto, etc) have other priorities.



Nope, all sections of the Western ruling class espouse environmentalist ideology.



BDBBDBEEE, that's all ffffolks from our very own Monsanto Mouth-Piece....


Marxists oppose the capitalists who control the technology, but we do not oppose the technology itself. By your logic, we should oppose the development of AIDS medicines or progress in medical research, because such development and research is controlled by multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

Obviously, we don't oppose scientific development and research. Indeed, Marxists are society's most ardent supporters of technological and scientific innovation and progress, which makes us directly opposed to environmentalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGulfOil1917PerLitre:


An honest environmentalist like Monbiot who is an opponent, not of 'Big Oil', but of ordinary working class people:

At least he identifies himself as the enemy.


Nope, all sections of the Western ruling class espouse environmentalist ideology.

You seem to be one among those rare RevLefters who believes everything the ruling-class says!


Marxists oppose the capitalists who control the technology, but we do not oppose the technology itself. By your logic, we should oppose the development of AIDS medicines or progress in medical research, because such development and research is controlled by multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

Obviously, we don't oppose scientific development and research. Indeed, Marxists are society's most ardent supporters of technological and scientific innovation and progress, which makes us directly opposed to environmentalism.

And one of those who thinks Big Pharma is interested in a cure for AIDS!

[Vanguard1917]

At least he identifies himself as the enemy.



I thought you said he was some kind of 'honest' leftwing opponent of 'big oil' and the free market. Now he's 'the enemy'. That's quite a sudden and radical transformation in your views, which indicates a severe lack of knowing what you're talking about.



And one of those who thinks Big Pharma is interested in a cure for AIDS!


As usual you're not addressing the point made. The fact that we oppose pharmaceutical companies does not mean that we oppose medical progress and medicine production - in the same way that opposing food companies does not mean opposing technological advances in agriculture and food production.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGlaxoSmithKline$1917PerTablet:


I thought you said he was some kind of 'honest' leftwing opponent of 'big oil' and the free market. Now he's 'the enemy'. That's quite a sudden and radical transformation in your views, which indicates a severe lack of knowing what you're talking about.

'Honest' does not mean the same as 'truthful'; perhaps you missed that class with Furedi?


As usual you're not addressing the point made. The fact that we oppose pharmaceutical companies does not mean that we oppose medical progress and medicine production - in the same way that opposing food companies does not mean opposing technological advances in agriculture and food production.

As I said -- and we can only thank you for confirming this once more -- it's really good of you owning up to being the voice of Big Pharma.

[Vanguard1917]

'Honest' does not mean the same as 'truthful'


So, are neo-Malthusians like Monbiot leftist allies of Marxists (as you suggested before) or 'enemies' (as you are stating now)? Maybe you should make up your mind.



As I said -- and we can only thank you for confirming this once more -- it's really good of you owning up to being the voice of Big Pharma.


Are you totally incapable of addressing points made? What's the point of having a discussion if you're going to behave like a little kid?

Is opposing capitalist control of scientific progress the same as opposing scientific progress itself?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGlaxoSmithKline$1917PerTablet:


So, are neo-Malthusians like Monbiot leftist allies of Marxists (as you suggested before) or 'enemies' (as you are stating now)? Maybe you should make up your mind.

I have made my mind up: you are our very own Big Pharma rep.


What's the point of having a discussion if you're going to behave like a little kid?

I resent that: I am behaving nothing like you.


Is opposing capitalist control of scientific progress the same as opposing scientific progress itself?

For the answer to that, can I suggest you re-read your briefing notes from Monsanto?

[Vanguard1917]

Wow. Truly astonishing.

[biscuits]

just wow... the more I read....

is there a special secret moderated subsection for adults?

:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGlaxoSmithKline$1917PerTablet:


Wow. Truly astonishing.

You're easily impressed.

----------------------

Goose:


just wow... the more I read....

is there a special secret moderated subsection for adults?

Apologies, Goose; I just take the p*ss out of VG here. He has been pushing the interests of Big Capital at RevLeft for some time, all the while pretending to be a red.

I gave up arguing with him last year when he just ignored whatever I said.

[biscuits]

imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_end_is_not_for_a_while.png

damn 25 post limit

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Biscuits, what on earth does that mean?

[Plagueround]

It means he doesn't really have anything to contribute. He's decided this site is a waste of time, but continues to post here because he feels like being an immature troll. When he gets restricted for such blatant trolling, he'll use it to fuel the preconceived notion that "commies don't believe in freedom of speech".

In the case of his picture, I think it's an attempt to make fun of people that aren't simply ok with the status quo.

[Vanguard1917]

I gave up arguing with him last year when he just ignored whatever I said.


LOL. When was this? Please post thread.

[biscuits]

i just liked it...

you followed the link right?

look, one on voting:

xkcd.com/463/


it's a web address...


sheesh

[biscuits]

It means he doesn't really have anything to contribute. He's decided this site is a waste of time, but continues to post here because he feels like being an immature troll. When he gets restricted for such blatant trolling, he'll use it to fuel the preconceived notion that "commies don't believe in freedom of speech".




hot-damn, nail on head! This happens a lot then?

[Plagueround]

hot-damn, nail on head! This happens a lot then?

Well...I'll give you a bit of credit for admitting to being immature and a troll.

To answer your question, not as much as I've seen on most other internet forums, especially political ones. This site is probably the most diplomatic political forum in that they do simply restrict most people instead of outright banning them, still giving them a forum to discuss their arguments against leftist ideals...which, by the way, shuts down any strawman argument you could use against the idea we don't allow people to express their opinions...we just don't allow them to constantly derail the discussion at hand in an effort to prove such a weak, tired, and uninformed point, which you've done.

[biscuits]

hold on a cotton picking bloody minute, this site sells t-shirts and has a geo-targetted advert from the metropolitan police waiting for me at the top?!



Right Wing Extremist
Suspect it? Report it. Your call could be vital to us.

I'll remain careful who my friends are thankyou, fuck this, have a victory dance, I've seen them all over.


To answer your question, not as much as I've seen on most other internet forums, especially political ones. This site is probably the most diplomatic political forum in that they do simply restrict most people instead of outright banning them, still giving them a forum to discuss their arguments against leftist ideals...which, by the way, shuts down any strawman argument you could use against the idea we don't allow people to express their opinions...we just don't allow them to constantly derail the discussion at hand in an effort to prove such a weak, tired, and uninformed point, which you've done.

I got banned a couple of days ago as pox for expressing an opinion which as it happens I believe had merit for discourse. Take said straw and shove said straw.

[Plagueround]

hold on a cotton picking bloody minute, this site sells t-shirts and has a geo-targetted advert from the metropolitan police waiting for me at the top?!



I'll remain careful who my friends are thankyou, fuck this, have a victory dance, I've seen them all over.

I got banned a couple of days ago as pox for expressing an opinion which as it happens I believe had merit for discourse. Take said straw and shove said straw.

You got banned because what you were suggesting was a fascist idea. In that regard, we have to play by German laws and not allow the promotion of fascism, so you'd have to take that one up with the German government.

As for the advertisements, they're based off your browsing habits. I work for a major search engine and could bore you all day describing how it works. Learn2NoScript.

Oh, also. Bye.

[biscuits]

I spend all day on the met site me yeah...


You got banned because what you were suggesting was a fascist idea. In that regard, we have to play by German laws and not allow the promotion of fascism, so you'd have to take that one up with the German government.

no, I wasn't, also:

lie surely!


Visit: namecheap.com
Domain name: revleft.com
Registrant Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd
Westchester CA 90045
US

US host, US law?!

[Plagueround]

I spend all day on the met site me yeah...



no, I wasn't, also:

lie surely!


Visit: namecheap.com
Domain name: revleft.com
Registrant Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd
Westchester CA 90045
US

US host, US law?!

The main administrator and thus proprietor of this website is German. Try again.

[#FF0000]

US host, US law?!

You didn't even bother looking up "WhoIsGuard", did you?

[Plagueround]

You didn't even bother looking up "WhoIsGuard", did you?

LOL I didn't even read the address...priceless. Top notch research there poxbiscuits. :thumbup:

[Bilan]

Please stop flaming and spamming in this thread.

[Trystan]

I don't know about the British party, but the RCP (US) seem like a bunch of idiots, mostly. I'm told they created a cult of personality around leader Bob Avakian. :lol:

[Big Red]

Isn't Bob Avakian hiding from US officials in France or something?

[Trystan]

Isn't Bob Avakian hiding from US officials in France or something?

They dropped all charged against him in 1981. Nobody knows where he is now. Some "leader", eh?

[KurtFF8]

Marxists oppose the capitalists who control the technology, but we do not oppose the technology itself. By your logic, we should oppose the development of AIDS medicines or progress in medical research, because such development and research is controlled by multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

Obviously, we don't oppose scientific development and research. Indeed, Marxists are society's most ardent supporters of technological and scientific innovation and progress, which makes us directly opposed to environmentalism.

I don't know if Marxists should oppose environmentalism but instead should oppose primitivism. Environmentalism requires advance in technology to have more efficient, eco-friendly ways of production that make sure that we...well don't destroy the Earth. I don't see what is anti-Marxist about that. Especially since it requires planning, many enviornmentalists are in favor of a planned economy. But even if you're opposed to a planned economy, that doesn't mean you have to oppose envrionmentalism.

I don't see why the means of production can be eco-friendly and be in the hands of the working class.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know if Marxists should oppose environmentalism but instead should oppose primitivism. Environmentalism requires advance in technology to have more efficient, eco-friendly ways of production that make sure that we...well don't destroy the Earth. I don't see what is anti-Marxist about that. Especially since it requires planning, many enviornmentalists are in favor of a planned economy. But even if you're opposed to a planned economy, that doesn't mean you have to oppose envrionmentalism.

I don't see why the means of production can be eco-friendly and be in the hands of the working class.

Marxists are all for making our natural environment better suited to human inhabitation; in fact, human mastery over nature is a key goal from the perspective of the Marxist outlook.* What Marxism is diametrically opposed to are the reactionary ideas which make up the core of environmentalism (as a political movement with a set of ideological viewpoints) - from its hostility to science and technology to its misanthropic neo-Malthusianism.


*
For example, see Trotsky's summary of the aims of socialism:

'A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm))

[Goose]

look, one on voting:

xkcd.com/463/


it's a web address...


sheesh


That's funny.

[Sendo]

Vanguard, your ideas of adapting nature to fit our needs really turn out to be nothing more than rationalizations for the ongoing crimes of capitalism. I'm sorry if you think I'm holding back progress. But I'd rather not breathe fumes from gasoline-powered cars (holding 1 person each) when I'm going on a morning run. I don't like paying for transportation costs of shitty, processed food. I don't think it's a good idea to industrialize farming in the 3rd world and subjecting workers to cost-cutting toxic chemicals when organic methods could also work.

[KurtFF8]

Marxists are all for making our natural environment better suited to human inhabitation; in fact, human mastery over nature is a key goal from the perspective of the Marxist outlook.* What Marxism is diametrically opposed to are the reactionary ideas which make up the core of environmentalism (as a political movement with a set of ideological viewpoints) - from its hostility to science and technology to its misanthropic neo-Malthusianism.


*
For example, see Trotsky's summary of the aims of socialism:

'A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm))

But again it seems that you're linking environmentalism with primitivism. Environmentalism, just like socialism, is a broad term that encompasses many different views of how to accomplish the same goal: a sustainable environment. Many strands don't argue against technology, and especially don't argue for techonology that would hurt the working class. I do agree though that some strands should indeed be opposed to Marxists.

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard, your ideas of adapting nature to fit our needs really turn out to be nothing more than rationalizations for the ongoing crimes of capitalism.


I didn't say that we should 'adapt' to nature. I said we should seek to master nature. :)



I don't think it's a good idea to industrialize farming in the 3rd world and subjecting workers to cost-cutting toxic chemicals when organic methods could also work.


How would these 'organic methods' work exactly? In what ways would they rescue developing nations from backbreaking agricultural work? In what way would they increase efficiency and output so that people in the developing world would spend less time trying to produce enough food to survive and more time in developing themselves and their societies?

And since 'organic methods' already dominate agriculture in some of the most impoverished areas of the developing world, your suggestion that '3rd worlders go organic' is not so much radical as apologising for the status quo. Subsistence farming in Africa, Asia and Latin America uses very few fertilisers and basically no modern machines. Everything is done 'organically', simply as a result of a lack of choice. Farmers spend all day doing backbreaking work and poverty is intense. Hardly something that 'revolutionaries' should be celebrating, is it?

[KurtFF8]

For example, see Trotsky's summary of the aims of socialism:

'A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm))

Also another point on the same post I replied to in my last one ^.

Trotsky here is basically saying that Marxism is a utilitarian ideology, which many would likely disagree with "the means are justified by the ends" as some means we as Marxists would sometimes not employ, even if it helped reach the ends.

This is obviously a point of debate, but certainly not universally accepted (I suppose that's what not everyone is a Trotsky fan)