Modern Communism, is it Green now?

[paolo22]

Hello, I'm new here, seems like a nice place, I might stay a while.

Anyway. I'm interested on the opinion of a modern day communist world, with the kleptocracy of the bourgeoisie dismantled. What do you all see in technological change?

In our current world, technology is almost deformed and divided to create the perfect world for market instead of compatibility, quality and self sustainability.

In 2008, technologies are available that could change the face of communism forever, from red.... to green.

1) Energy...Solar panels, Wind Turbines, Hybrid Engines and commune transportation make it possible for energy to be available and abundant forever without harming nature, and without a massive working force to sustain it. This would ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress.

2) Hydroponics, Aquaponics, and other growing technologies make it possible for popularized home-growing and city farms that could feed the world 10 times over year round with FRESH and SAFE food. This would also ease the workforce and allow for more education and human progress.

When these two elements combine we create the perfect cycle for for a commune society; less work load means more intellectual working force, plus healthier foods makes it possible to progress human nature to an even better rate of evolution, while at the same time preserving our planet.

It is undeniable that communism and Green technologies are made for each other, visit my site for more info. Green-Revolutionary.com

[Black Sheep]

Technology had always increased productivity,automated shitty jobs and discovered sustainable methods of energy-I dont think that today there is a need for a change in our strategy (or at least radical)-which is, seizure of the means of production.

Technology is utilized by the capitalists for profit, and nothing else.If one day there was a way found, out of which you could blink twice and snap your fingers,thus triggering a secret quantum-level change reaction and thus create a quantity of food and supplies, that 'discovery' would be hidden from the public or at least sold for a modest sum.

After all, earth-friendly sources of energy are being suppressed in order to mantain the profits of industries and corporations trading fossil fuel and machines working with fossil fuels.

Communism can stay red for now.:star2:

[ZeroNowhere]

Certainly, I doubt that the majority of people want to pollute and such, it's just that it's more profitable. Also, of course, we can already easily feed the world, it's just that many crops are destroyed to keep supply down, capitalists try to push wages down as low as possible, etc. Another thing that would probably be tried out is vertical farming.
The only valid form of green is red.

[paolo22]

The only valid form of green is red.

I agree, more importantly; the best form of red would be green.

Something new is always better.

[More Fire for the People]

'Modern' communism isn't just green, communism has always been green. Check out this article: http://www.monthlyreview.org/081110foster.php

[GPDP]

That's an excellent article. Indeed, even back in Marx's day, the communist movement took environmentalism seriously.

[ZeroNowhere]

I agree, more importantly; the best form of red would be green.

Something new is always better.
No, red looks better than green. Also, it sounds better.
'The people's flag is deepest green'
No.

[paolo22]

No, red looks better than green. Also, it sounds better.
'The people's flag is deepest green'
No.

lol :laugh:

[bellyscratch]

Even though I see that a communist/socialist society as an improvement on a capitalist society environmentally, I still feel that there is improvements to be made by much of the left. Some of the things I've read about the environment by left organisations don't seem to see how serious a threat climate change really is and how urgent a change and the level of change that is needed imo.

I think the issue of 'greens' becoming more 'red' and vice versa is something that needs to be put forward to solve the issues of capitalism's devastating effects on both the environment and the people.

[KurtFF8]

'Modern' communism isn't just green, communism has always been green. Check out this article: http://www.monthlyreview.org/081110foster.php

Communists are always way ahead of their time :) (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6413&news_iv_ctrl=-1)

[wigsa]

I think if communists are serious about making the world a better place,then communism has to be a green movement.It would be a form of practising what we preach.It makes sense-less of a strain on unrenewable resources and therefore less exploitation to get them.Renewable resources are ones which can be used all over the world with the right investment.Places all over the third world could have solar energy with a decent amount of investment from developed nations.

Communism can only be green,in my opinion.

[Vanguard1917]

'Modern' communism isn't just green, communism has always been green. Check out this article: http://www.monthlyreview.org/081110foster.php (http://www.monthlyreview.org/081110foster.php)


No, communism hasn't always been 'green'. In fact, the Marxist outlook was always diametrically opposed to environmentalist notions.

The article you link is a characteristic and deliberate distortion of the Marxist view by Foster, the editor of the Malthusian journal where that article was published. It is an excellent example of the futile attempt to reconcile environmentalist logic with Marxism - two antithetical outlooks. Anyone who has undertaken a serious study of Marx, along with other Marxists (Engels, Lenin, Trotsky), will see very plainly just how alien environmentalist thinking is to Marxism.

For example, see Foster's highly selective and out-of-context quotation of Marx as a way of distortion:

"Man lives from nature, i.e. nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man’s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

The aim, of course, is to paint Marx as an eco-warrior arguing in favour of the elevation of the 'interests' of nature to that of man. He fails to mention that, for Marx, the aim of humanity is to master nature, to elevate itself above it, to control it and subject it to human domination. For Marx, what makes human beings human is precisely the fact that they can, through their productive abilities, consciously change their natural surroundings in their own interests. If Foster had some honesty, rather than being a liar, he would have drawn attention to the actual content of Marx's argument in Estranged Labour -- that human beings, through their productive activity, learn to fashion and subject nature to their will -- rather than lifting statements out of context to back up his own eco-prejudices:

"The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious species-being--i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwelling, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty.

"It is, therefore, in his fashioning of the objective that man really proves himself to be a species-being. Such production is his active species-life. Through it, nature appears as his work and his reality."

Far from being environmentalist nature-worshippers, Marx and Engels had no time for and strongly criticised the environmentalists of their day. The 19th century 'naturalist' philosopher Daumer, for instance, who talked of the divineness of nature and the virtue of the 'sacrifice of the human to the natural', was condemned by Marx and Engels as being "reactionary even in comparison with Christianity".

In reply to such reactionary environmentalism, Marx and Engels emphasised that "modern natural science... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/daumer.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/daumer.htm))

Engels argued that man's freedom can only be achieved through his mastery of his natural environment:

"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)

Marx emphasised that it's only through human industry that human progress can take place:

"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm

Indeed, Marx pointed out that capitalism is a 'revolutionary' and 'civilising' system precisely because it has permitted humanity to better subject nature to its interests:

"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."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch08.htm

This Marxist emphasis on the need to subject nature to the will of humanity through industrial progress was central to the writings of Marxists. The Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, for example:

"The present distribution of mountains and rivers, of fields, of meadows, of steppes, of forests, and of seashores, cannot be considered final. Man has already made changes in the map of nature that are not few nor insignificant. But they are mere pupils’ practice in comparison with what is coming. Faith merely promises to move mountains; but technology, which takes nothing “on faith”, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them. Up to now this was done for industrial purposes (mines) or for railways (tunnels); in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale, according to a general industrial and artistic plan. Man will occupy himself with re-registering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature. In the end, he will have rebuilt the earth, if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste. We have not the slightest fear that this taste will be bad."

"Through the machine, man in Socialist society will command nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will point out places for mountains and for passes. He will change the course of the rivers, and he will lay down rules for the oceans. The idealist simpletons may say that this will be a bore, but that is why they are simpletons. Of course this does not mean that the entire globe will be marked off into boxes, that the forests will be turned into parks and gardens. Most likely, thickets and forests and grouse and tigers will remain, but only where man commands them to remain. And man will do it so well that the tiger won’t even notice the machine, or feel the change, but will live as he lived in primeval times. The machine is not in opposition to the earth. The machine is the instrument of modern man in every field of life. The present-day city is transient. But it will not be dissolved back again into the old village. On the contrary, the village will rise in fundamentals to the plane of the city. Here lies the principal task. The city is transient, but it points to the future, and indicates the road. The present village is entirely of the past."

"The effort to conquer poverty, hunger, want in all its forms, that is, to conquer nature, will be the dominant tendency for decades to come. The passion for mechanical improvements, as in America, will accompany the first stage of every new Socialist society."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm

Lenin famously stated that socialism is soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country. In other words, the rule of the working class along with the industrialisation of the society as a whole, especially parts of it which are currently backward and rural. Trotsky agreed:

"The socialist transformation of agriculture will of course be brought about, not simply by means of co-operation as a mere form of organisation but through co-operation based upon the introduction of machinery into agriculture, its electrification, and generally its industrialisation. This signifies that both the technical and socialist progress of agriculture cannot be separated from the growing relative importance of industry in the general economy of the country."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/11/towards.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/11/towards.htm)

Whereas environmentalists call for Malthusian population control policies to reduce human impact on nature, Malthusian ideas were ridiculed and attacked by Marxists like Marx, Engels and Lenin. On neo-Malthusianism, Lenin wrote:

"Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes."
http://www.marxfaq.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm


In short, the claim that environmentalism has 'always been part of communism' is simply untrue. Marxists have always condemned reactionary environmentalist arguments, for the reason that they are wholly antithetical to the view of human progress upheld by the scientific and materialist Marxist outlook. It was only around the time of the 1970s, when many on the left began to abandon working class politics, that environmentalism began to be embraced by leftists. Prior to that, environmentalist ideas were generally associated with the right, not the left.

None of this is to say that Marxists do not highlight the destructive impact that capitalism can have on our material surroundings. Marxists explain that, due to its spontaneous and unconscious nature, capitalism stands in the way of real human control of natural forces. As such, we completely reject the environmentalist notion that the problem lies with humanity and human productivity. We do not support calls to restrain economic development. We do not support Malthusian demands for less people on earth. In fact, Marxists strongly condemn and oppose such demands. We oppose capitalism precisely because it stands in the way of the development of humanity's productive capabilities. In other words, it's one thing to acknowledge the negative aspects of capitalist industrialisation; it's something altogether different to accept the reactionary conclusions of the environmental movement.

For the most part, claims that affinity between Marxism and environmentalism exists are based on a lack of understanding of what Marxism is. In such cases, all that is needed is a more thorough education of Marxism itself.

In the case of people like Foster, however, such claims are based on a delibrate attempt to reconcile Marxism with a reactionary political ideology. As people who have studied Marxism, people like Foster know full well that their ideology (based on Malthusian and environmentalist notions) is completely alien to Marxism. So, in an attempt to legitimate their ideology via Marxism, they must distort Marxism and make up lies about its contents. Of course, Marxism is used to such abuse, and has been subjected to it throughout its history by various individuals and movements. Environmentalism is one of the more current ones.


It is undeniable that communism and Green technologies are made for each other, visit my site for more info. Green-Revolutionary.com

If renewable sources could provide the massive amounts of energy necessary to bring about the level of industrial development which humanity requires, then Marxists would support it. At its current level of development, however, wind and solar energy cannot produce nearly enough amounts of such energy.

The solution to any energy shortage problems today must involve far more investment in nuclear power, which would help provide a more plentiful supply of cleaner energy. We also need to accept the fact that coal and oil will continue to be important sources of energy for some time, especially for poor countries who are in need of cheap and effective supply of energy to fuel their industrial projects and general economic development. By campaigning against the production of energy from coal, oil and nuclear power, the environmental movement, whether it knows it or not, is standing firmly on the side of reaction. Slowing down economic development, especially in the parts of the world which need it most, is no alternative to anything.

[Module]

I don't think that communism and 'environmentalism' are made for eachother, at all.
I think that looking after the environment is necessary to the extent that preserving the human race is necessary, but anything other than that is frankly a waste of energy and effort.
With 'greener' energy technology being produced, I think yes if it means we don't all eventually become frazzled by global warming then of course it's necessary, but not from a specifically communist perspective.
As others have already mentioned in this thread, communism should be red not green.
Under a socialist economic system environmental management would be a lot easier, yes, but we would, I'm sure, welcome it as a useful side effect, rather than a specific goal to reach.
Technology should be used to improve our lives, as human beings, if need be at the expense of the 'environment'. If looking after our planet is necessary to stay alive, sure, then communists will want to look after the planet, as human beings. I really don't see why/how this makes us 'green'. It's people we're concerned about, not 'nature'. Looking after the planet has frankly nothing to do with communism.

[Oneironaut]

I would love to see the majority of environmentalists I know understand that capitalism will be an impassible block to achieving a sustainable environment. I am fine with environmentalists who advocate for a sustainable environment, but not to the extent that humanity has to suffer. I would much rather have a species of fish go extinct in a pond than prevent the building of a water pipeline through the fish's ecosystem. I am for the environment only to the extent that it is sustainable for humanity's continued existence.

[KurtFF8]

If renewable sources could provide the massive amounts of energy necessary to bring about the level of industrial development which humanity requires, then Marxists would support it. At its current level of development, however, wind and solar energy cannot produce nearly enough amounts of such energy.

The solution to any energy shortage problems today must involve far more investment in nuclear power, which would help provide a more plentiful supply of cleaner energy. We also need to accept the fact that coal and oil will continue to be important sources of energy for some time, especially for poor countries who are in need of cheap and effective supply of energy to fuel their industrial projects and general economic development. By campaigning against the production of energy from coal, oil and nuclear power, the environmental movement, whether it knows it or not, is standing firmly on the side of reaction. Slowing down economic development, especially in the parts of the world which need it most, is no alternative to anything.


I know you posted a lot but I'm going to focus on this point. Environmentalism isn't a singular ideology, just as feminism isn't a singular ideology that you can criticize, and that's what you're doing here.

Environmentalism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. Yes Marxists believe in industrial development which progresses the human race, but. When development is done in such a way that it starts to threaten the stability of the Earth itself (thus presenting quite a sever problem to the human race as a whole), I don't understand how true Marxists wouldn't advocate a "Green" economy, or more Eco-friendly ways of industrializing/

Envrionmentalism does not equal primitivism as you seem to be positing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_green_environmentalism)

[Vanguard1917]

I know you posted a lot but I'm going to focus on this point. Environmentalism isn't a singular ideology, just as feminism isn't a singular ideology that you can criticize, and that's what you're doing here.

Environmentalism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive.

I'm referring to environmentalism as it exists in the real world, not what we may want it to be like. Like i explained in another thread:

If there are any forms of environmentalism which agree that humanity must learn to master nature, subject nature to its will and dominate nature, through mass industrial development and technological innovation, that all production must be industrialised, that industrial output must be radically stepped up in order to allow an increase in mass consumption levels, and that capitalism is a flawed system because it criminally holds back the mass development of society's productive forces - then, yeah, such forms of 'environmentalism' would be compatible with Marxism.

Since, in the real world, no such environmentalism exists, and since in the real world all environmentalists oppose the central viewpoint of Marxism concerning human progress, we can safely say that there is no real world environmentalist ideology which is compatible with Marxism. Environmentalist ideas, as they exist in the real world, are diametrically opposed to Marxism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/green-communism-t95717/index.html

[KurtFF8]

As I pointed out, the concept of "Bright Green" environmentalism is the notion that technology should be developed and advanced in a "green way". Thus it is the opposite of what primitivists claim we should do (they claim we should use less technology and develop less) where "Bright Greens" think we should develop, but do so in an environmentally sound way.

There is nothing inherently anti-Marxist about developing "Green Industry" that can be just as productive as destructive industry. The Eastern European socialist states of the 20th century were very detrimental to the environment, but that doesn't mean that Marxists should follow that example. Destruction of the environment is detrimental to the human race itself, and thus the working class of the human race (which by the way generally is affected even more severely by environmental problems than the bourgeoisie).

You seem to be attributing envrionmentalism itself to primitivism, which is simply false. It is a simple scientific fact that having industry that is built in such a way that is too damaging to the envrionment is harmful to the human race, and thus we need to develop industy in a sound way.

The mastry of nature has already been achieved by the human race, and we shouldn't reverse this trend. Not all envrionmetnalists are "Earth Fundamentalists" to a religious degree (although there are many who think that certain parts of the enriovnment should be protected because of their intrinsic value). It is very much a self-preservation issue that Marxists (along with basically all other political/economic currents) should be concerned with.

[Vanguard1917]

There is nothing inherently anti-Marxist about developing "Green Industry" that can be just as productive as destructive industry.


There is nothing at all wrong about improving industry to make it more efficient and less damaging. Why would there be? Marxists support such progress.

The environmental movement as whole, on the other hand, continually opposes developments in industry and technology (e.g. biotechnology, mechanised agriculture, globalised production, vivisection, urban development, etc.) and calls for Malthusian anti-human policies to reduce the human impact on nature.

Is there any significant environmentalist organisation that does not support the reactionary agenda of Malthusianism? Not that i know. As Marxists, we know that it's an agenda directly and completely opposed to our worldview.

"Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory [of neo-Malthusianism] on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes."
- Lenin

[bellyscratch]

Is there any significant environmentalist organisation that does not support the reactionary agenda of Malthusianism? Not that i know. As Marxists, we know that it's an agenda directly and completely opposed to our worldview.


Well, has been a growth in an ecosocialist movement. There is the Ecosocialist International Network (http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/). There are organisations such as Socialist Resistance (http://socialistresistance.org/).

I personally think that the industrialisation that many socialists/communists seem to want and expect in a post-capitalist society is quite scary and could be extremely harmful to the environment, even if 'green' technology is used. It is bound to use up huge amounts of recources at an extremely quick rate. I don't think human progress should be harmful to the rest of the environment unless there is no other option and there has to be serious considerations about how we plan to work with nature instead of dominating it. I'm not a primivitist and don't think we should be regressing technologically but we definatley need to progress in a way that is more considerate to the environment than many on the left seem to propose.

[Vanguard1917]

Well, has been a growth in an ecosocialist movement. There is the Ecosocialist International Network (http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/). There are organisations such as Socialist Resistance (http://socialistresistance.org/).

Yes, the left played an integral role in building the modern environmental movement. Once it abandoned working class politics, it began to take the side of those who wish to lower working class living standards and consumption.



I personally think that the industrialisation that many socialists/communists seem to want and expect in a post-capitalist society is quite scary and could be extremely harmful to the environment, even if 'green' technology is used. It is bound to use up huge amounts of recources at an extremely quick rate.


On the contrary, through technological development, as production becomes more efficient, resources are able to be utilised much more efficiently. Such progress will only be massively stepped up under socialist production.

Also, as our technological abilities and scientific knowledge advances, our use of natural resources changes. So, whereas, for example, coal was a vital resource at a certain stage of our development, as technology progressed its importance was reduced relative to newer sources of energy. On the other hand, an element like uranium was not considered a resource for human beings until the scientific developments of the 20th century, when it was discovered that it could be used to make fuel. Resources should therefore not be seen as fixed and existing outside of human society; they only acquire meaning through human society.

[paolo22]

As the creator of Green-Revolutionary, I'd like to mention that the site is in favor of Marxist ideology. We only incorporated the color green because we understand that technology has become advanced to the point that it is not compatible with capitalism. Capitalism is based upon sustained growth, renewable energy is not something that sustains economic growth (at current rates).

The ability to create energy and fresh produce at the personal level, year round, is revolutionary. This must not be forgotten by Marxists.

Capitalism creates products that are not compatible, simply to make more products possible. In Marxism this must be avoided, everything must be completely OPEN SOURCE and COMPATIBLE. That idea alone can save drastic resources, and further human communication and evolution.

Green-Revolutionary believes that technology is fundamental to Marxism. Obviously it is to any ideology, however instead of taking advantage of it, it must be used at optimal efficiency.

Nobody ever said not to damage the earth atoll, we understand that human life is more important than "saving a pond" as one said, but why 5 ponds when it can be only one? 5 ponds = more contracts and more money... something all of us here do not believe in.

Marxism would reduce resource consumption, therefor it is green, as much as it is red.

In my opinion :)

Thanks to all for stopping by.
Green-Revolutionary.com

[ev]

Communism and environmentalism (from a perspective of being concerned about the environment) are compatible as the utilization of the workforce and resources could be directed to create sustainable energy for the people and preserve the environment, in my opinion this is achievable and is worth further investigation and vindication of the efficient use of such technologies.

[bellyscratch]

Yes, the left played an integral role in building the modern environmental movement. Once it abandoned working class politics, it began to take the side of those who wish to lower working class living standards and consumption.



On the contrary, through technological development, as production becomes more efficient, resources are able to be utilised much more efficiently. Such progress will only be massively stepped up under socialist production.

Also, as our technological abilities and scientific knowledge advances, our use of natural resources changes. So, whereas, for example, coal was a vital resource at a certain stage of our development, as technology progressed its importance was reduced relative to newer sources of energy. On the other hand, an element like uranium was not considered a resource for human beings until the scientific developments of the 20th century, when it was discovered that it could be used to make fuel. Resources should therefore not be seen as fixed and existing outside of human society; they only acquire meaning through human society.

I'm still not convinced to be honest. I understand that technology and science will play a huge role, but I'm just worried it won't be enough.

This is an area that I'm reading up on as much as possible, but there are still a few issues I need to make up my mind on for what is the best approach to preserving the stability of the environment and adapting to it as it changes.

I believe in animal rights and think that whatever happens, we must try not infringe on these rights just so we can consume more (through loss of habitat mainly). I'm not saying animal rights are the same as human rights as I am speciesist, but I think we should respect and consider non-human lives as we attempt to adapt to climate change and impact them as little as possible. I know there will be a few people who disagree with me and do not consider other animals that important.

Of course it is hard to know what to expect in the future as a lot of what is said is just speculation of what could happen. Circumstances may radically change and we may have to reconsider many things.

[paolo22]

Think you all for paying a visit.... Just to clear things up; I've added "tsos" video to the main page of the site, just for a couple weeks. I feel this will show the main idea of what's going on, and why the working class SHOULD be concerned.

[Vanguard1917]

I believe in animal rights and think that whatever happens, we must try not infringe on these rights just so we can consume more (through loss of habitat mainly). I'm not saying animal rights are the same as human rights as I am speciesist, but I think we should respect and consider non-human lives as we attempt to adapt to climate change and impact them as little as possible. I know there will be a few people who disagree with me and do not consider other animals that important.


Although from the perspective of Marxism, the aim of communism is to increase the human domination of nature, this is not the same thing as making animals and plants extict. In fact, by enhancing our ability to dominate and regulate nature, we'll be in a far better position than ever before to intervene and consciously preserve the aspects of nature which we wish to preserve.

Trotsky put it really well:

"Through the machine, man in Socialist society will command nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will point out places for mountains and for passes. He will change the course of the rivers, and he will lay down rules for the oceans. The idealist simpletons may say that this will be a bore, but that is why they are simpletons. Of course this does not mean that the entire globe will be marked off into boxes, that the forests will be turned into parks and gardens. Most likely, thickets and forests and grouse and tigers will remain, but only where man commands them to remain. And man will do it so well that the tiger won’t even notice the machine, or feel the change, but will live as he lived in primeval times. The machine is not in opposition to the earth. The machine is the instrument of modern man in every field of life. The present-day city is transient. But it will not be dissolved back again into the old village. On the contrary, the village will rise in fundamentals to the plane of the city. Here lies the principal task. The city is transient, but it points to the future, and indicates the road. The present village is entirely of the past."

[bobroberts]

I would hope that poisoning the workers and community, while needlessly squandering the natural resources which belong to everyone, would be incompatible with communism.

[paolo22]

The theory of communism is mainly to progress the lives of all humans, this is greatly Dependant on sustaining our surroundings.


Does anyone not agree on that?

And does anyone not agree that CONSUMPTION would be decreased tenfold and WORKLOAD also?

Thanks again,
Paolo

[Vanguard1917]

The theory of communism is mainly to progress the lives of all humans, this is greatly Dependant on sustaining our surroundings.


Does anyone not agree on that?

No. The 'theory of communism', at least that set out by Marxism, holds that human progress comes about by humanity mastering its material surroundings, as opposed to merely 'sustaining' it.



And does anyone not agree that CONSUMPTION would be decreased tenfold and WORKLOAD also?


Why would we want a society which is going to make people 10 times poorer than they already are? I think such a project would be the literal definition of the word reactionary.

The aim of communism is increase the productivity of labour so that we can produce more with less labour time, in order to allow a continual increase in consumption levels/material wealth.

[bellyscratch]

No. The 'theory of communism', at least that set out by Marxism, holds that human progress comes about by humanity mastering its material surroundings, as opposed to merely 'sustaining' it.



Why would we want a society which is going to make people 10 times poorer than they already are? I think such a project would be the literal definition of the word reactionary.

The aim of communism is increase the productivity of labour so that we can produce more with less labour time, in order to allow a continual increase in consumption levels/material wealth.

What is the point in consumption for consumption sake? Just because production is decreased does not necessarily mean people will be poorer. Everyone will have the basic necessities in life as well as less workload so they should not feel the need to consume, as I see consumption as, partly, an escapist activity which is pressured on the people through all shapes of advertising.

If you honestly think consumption levels can rise for everyone and we can just rely on technology to make communism 'green' then I think you're living in a dream world. I'm not saying that the poorest people of the world will not be able to consume more to have a decent standard of living, but many in the west (mostly middle and upper class), will have to consume less if we are to have a sustainable environment.

Ecology can't just be an afterthought of the movement of the left but a vital component of it, and this means rethinking every aspect of society to make sure it is sustainable.

[Vanguard1917]

What is the point in consumption for consumption sake? Just because production is decreased does not necessarily mean people will be poorer.

Of course they will, at least in the long term.



Everyone will have the basic necessities in life as well as less workload so they should not feel the need to consume, as I see consumption as, partly, an escapist activity which is pressured on the people through all shapes of advertising.


That may be your personal perjudice, but the vast majority of people break their backs in the hope that they can have a higher standard of living for themselves and their families.

Wanting to be wealthier is a very human desire.



If you honestly think consumption levels can rise for everyone and we can just rely on technology to make communism 'green' then I think you're living in a dream world.


Then communism is just a futile dream.

Not only that: you're openly advocating a system which will make working people even poorer than they currently are.

If that's the alternative, we're better off with capitalism.

[butterfly]

Look VG , I promied myself I would no longer respond to your futile tirade against environmentalism, and I hope this may be the last time, because generally I agree with what you say.

Simply and plainly Marx did not have access to the scientific data we posses today.
If he had he would have noticed the instant corellation between sustaining and mastering nature.

[Vanguard1917]

Simply and plainly Marx did not have access to the scientific data we posses today.
If he had he would have noticed the instant corellation between sustaining and mastering nature.

Sustaining and mastering imply two different things. You can have 'sustainability' without mastery of nature, but you can't have mastery, at least not in the long-term, over something which you can't sustain. But our aim is not 'sustainability' in itself; sustainability is needed only insofar as it allows us to progress as human beings. Indeed, you don't need humans on earth to make it more 'sustainable': if 'sustainability' is an aim in itself, the world is better off without people, since people are the ones causing this 'unsustainability'.

[butterfly]

No when I refer to sustainability i'm talking about the sustainability of the human species itself, which can only learn to progress and master nature if we exist in an environment that can sustain us.

[Lynx]

At any stage, we must want to protect the environment or it will be destroyed. It makes no difference if we are at a stage where we are dependent on the environment to survive (sustainability) or when our survival is no longer dependent (mastery over nature).

[butterfly]

I agree, however when our survival is no longer dependent on the environment it should not be prioritised over the quality of life of the individual.

[Lynx]

I agree, however when our survival is no longer dependent on the environment it should not be prioritised over the quality of life of the individual.
That is a policy decision that we will have greater freedom and responsibility to decide upon. Will we become stewards, safeguarding natural areas or will we get rid of them? Some have talked about using genetic engineering to make various animal species sentient!

[Vanguard1917]

At any stage, we must want to protect the environment or it will be destroyed. It makes no difference if we are at a stage where we are dependent on the environment to survive (sustainability) or when our survival is no longer dependent (mastery over nature).

Mastering nature does not mean that we're no longer dependent on nature. It means improving our ability to subject nature to the will of human beings. This comes about through the development of the productive forces of society.

[paolo22]

Mastering nature does not mean that we're no longer dependent on nature. It means improving our ability to subject nature to the will of human beings. This comes about through the development of the productive forces of society.

It amuses me that you actually think that the technology you use today is up to par with....... technology today. lol.

Everything around us to meant to break and self-destruct. So that we buy it again. You're being scammed. We're not making things to last or be re-used in a close loop cycle. That implies more and more resource consumption at the cost of.... you, your environment, and your labor.

Are you really that ignorant, Vanguard?

[duffers]

Vanguard, you speak in such bizarre terms I'm not familiar with. The word dogmatic comes to mind, like you're referring the scripture of Fr. Engles and Archbishop Marx. Marx as said already, prophetic (fortune teller, he weren't) especially regarding science and the catastrophic effect on the environment has had. We are not followers of something set in stone, this is a fluid, dynamic thought that can change at a moment to mirror the real life situation. This is why Marxism is dialectical and materialist, so as we're not stuck in the past. Judging by your name, and views however, that's precisely the problem you're in.

Unfettered consumption cannot be allowed nor even encouraged. Nor can the notion that people work their lives away, to become wealthier. We're meant to be abolishing self absorbed desires, not heralding their existence.

[gilhyle]

The most difficult suggestion for Marxists in environmentalist ideology seems to me to be that the issue of pollution has become one which in some sense urgently unites us all as humans in a common sense, standing above class issues. This apparently commonsensical, doom laden idea is a bit like the ideology of peace before politics or nation before class.

[duffers]

That might be because something like pollution is an urgent issue that does unite us all. This isn't however, something seperate to class issues; it goes hand in hand with them.

But a singular facet of environmentalism such as pollution does infact unite us all, and prompts urgency. To say this is a sign that is being prioritised above class issues however, is absurd. It is merely in a long list of concerns affecting the working class.

[JimmyJazz]

Sustaining and mastering imply two different things. You can have 'sustainability' without mastery of nature, but you can't have mastery, at least not in the long-term, over something which you can't sustain. But our aim is not 'sustainability' in itself; sustainability is needed only insofar as it allows us to progress as human beings. Indeed, you don't need humans on earth to make it more 'sustainable': if 'sustainability' is an aim in itself, the world is better off without people, since people are the ones causing this 'unsustainability'.

I think you mean utilization of nature. "Mastery" of nature is a Judeo-Christian concept, and makes no sense in the context of secular politics.

Sustainability only refers to sustainable utilization. Your attempt (in this thread) to portray real concerns over the long-term sustainability of the way we make use of natural resources as some form of nature worship is just one giant straw man.

Furthermore, please be aware that your apparent idea of utopia--strolling through an endless concrete jungle eating double-wrapped twinkies--is not shared by all working class people. Not even working people in the developing world. What makes you think that it is?

And I'd like to see you address paolo's point about planned obsolescence near the end of the last page. Consumption is not as inherently wasteful and destructive as capitalism makes it.

You may very well be right in saying that virtually every major environmental organization is at heart reactionary. You seem to be more knowledgeable about that than me. But that is not the same as a hand-waving response to concerns over how sustainable our economic practices are.


The most difficult suggestion for Marxists in environmentalist ideology seems to me to be that the issue of pollution has become one which in some sense urgently unites us all as humans in a common sense, standing above class issues.

I don't think it unites classes whatsoever. One class owns the factories, sells the cars, creates the waste that destroys our environment ever more on a daily basis. Said class then uses its wealth and privilege to wall itself off from the effects of this devastation. Another class is forced to create the commodities that don't meet human needs, perform the polluting production processes, use the cars to commute to work; it is powerless to alter this destructive system (expect by putting an end to it altogether), but it is forced to breath the air, swim in the waters, and walk the waste-filled inner city streets that it doesn't have the means to get away from, because it lives on a bare subsistence wage.

Environmental destruction is primarily a working class issue, as it is disproportionately caused by the ruling class and disproportionately affects the working class. And socialism alone is capable of solving it.

[Vanguard1917]

I think you mean utilization of nature. "Mastery" of nature is a Judeo-Christian concept, and makes no sense in the context of secular politics.

'Mastery' of nature -- as understood by radical thinkers like Marx and Engels -- refers to a process whereby human beings become less and less subjugated by natural forces by increasing their ability to control them through social and technological progress. That's something more than mere utilisation of nature; after all, even primitive human societies utilised nature, as indeed do animals (albeit, in their case, unconsciously).



Furthermore, please be aware that your apparent idea of utopia--strolling through an endless concrete jungle eating double-wrapped twinkies


For the sake of constructive debate, it might make some sense to deal with arguments that i've actually made.