Maoist Critique of the Deep Ecology Platform

131118-deep-ecology-animal-rights

Deep Ecology arose in the 1970s and 80s in the developed West. Ideologically it reflects the alienation between people and nature engendered under capitalism. However, it is limited in scope to a First World population which has been historically embourgeoisfied via colonial and neo-colonial rent. Thus, it is equally limited as a revolutionary ideology capable of advancing history progressively forward. That is to say, it is insufficient both as an analytic tool for understanding the current world and as a practical methodology for intervening in world history

While the actual history of the development of deep ecology is one thing entirely, the leading embourgeoisified element within deep ecology is evident in its platform, published in 1984 by Arne Naess and George Sessions:

The Deep Ecology Platform

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

—Arne Naess and George Sessions (1984)

For the purpose of clarifying the differences between Deep Ecology and a revolutionary Marxism, it is worth offering an examination of each point individually.

1) In its first point, the deep ecology platform defines a ‘intrinsic value’ to the well-being and flourishing of various forms of life. What this intrinsic value is based on is left unspoken, but it is simply put that it is not based on the usefulness to people.

At once, this point commits a number of errors.

First, it ideologically accepts the divorcement between nature and humanity by denying the only value they could have for each other, that of co-dependency of co-evolution.

Second, it denies the division of humanity, positing the current substance of ‘human purposes’ as humanity’s at large. This is done without noting the existing of specific ruling and ruled classes situated in a particular historical context.

Lastly, deep ecology defines an ahistorical ‘value’ to all lifeforms which is divorced from actual reality. What value does the life of a slave in the antebellum South, a factory worker in Bangladesh, or a drone strike victim in Yemen have? The answer by deep ecologists is no doubt a series of moral platitudes, which are certainly better than the ‘nuke ‘em all and let God sort them out’ outlook of some First Worlders. Yet such an outlook is liberal and fails to explain – let alone offer a solution to – the systemic abuse (and sometimes annihilation) of humans and other life-forms in the modern world.

2) The second premise is an extension of the first premise, positing that richness and diversity of life, irrespective of human utility, is a value unto itself.

Again, this is a value statement, not an explanatory statement on the current state of affairs or part of a counter-hegemonic strategy.

Though the background intent of the premise (i.e., a response to wholesale alienation from nature) is understandable, it is tantamount to acquiescing to a reification of a non-human world which is somehow separate from the human world. In reality, both are intimately related. Yet the premise that ‘richness of lifeforms is a value independent from human usefulness’ ultimately accepts the existence of a necessary division between ecological health and economic activity which is especially apparent under imperialism.

3) The third point is especially reveals deep ecology’s basic ignorance about capitalism and class divisions in the modern world. ‘Vital need’ is a fairly subjective term. Destroying the planet is vital for maintaining the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its lackeys.

4) The fourth point of the deep ecology platform, while recognizing that ‘human interference in the non-human world is worsening,’ also fails to locate the cause in the present mode of production.

5) The fifth point, calling for a reduction of the human population, is particularly stark, especially considering its vagueness. It begs the question, which populations should be reduced, and how?

It is possible that some deep ecologist believe the world’s richest 20% should be eradicated (which would solve a lot of short-term environmental problems related to consumption and waste). Yet this is doubtful because deep ecology is largely a movement of people who are themselves part of that rich 20%.

Given deep ecologists’ overall lack of power, it begs the question of how to implement a program of population reduction. Withholding medicine? Denying food to the poor? Supporting inevitable imperialist wars? In this point, deep ecology, despite its professed support for the ‘flourishing of human life,’ borders on being anti-people and raises dangerous potential implications.

6) The sixth point states that ‘policies must be changed.’

For anyone concerned about the environment, this is a big no-brainer. It further states such policy changes must “affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures” and that the “resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.” This again begs the question, how?

7) The seventh point, on the ideological change deemed necessary, raises the same question.

8) The eighth point implores adherents to ‘directly or indirectly’ further the cause of the systemic realization of the preceding points. It otherwise offers no direction or leadership on the matter. It seems both everything and nothing can be done to “directly or indirectly participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.”

All that is left is a rather shallow ideological and moral high-horse. And, while offering a philosophical high ground, deep ecology does not offer anything approximating a strategy or program to implement anything resembling its ideals.

In light of the substantial deficiencies of deep ecology from a Marxist perspective, it is appropriate to put forward an alternative platform which corrects many of the former’s mistakes:

Revolutionary Ecology Platform

1: The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life are intimately related. The flourishing of non-human life is generally of direct and indirect utility to humans, and vice versa.

2: Richness and diversity of non-human life can contribute to utility for humanity at large. Thus, it should be promoted as such.

3: Real wealth is utility or the ability to satisfy human wants and needs. The source of all wealth is two-fold: nature and human labor. It is in the long-term interest of a majority of humanity to steward biodiversity and ecological well-being (along with other elements of nature).

4: Alienation from and the subjugation of nature is in the vital interest of a small proportion of humanity: the ruling classes. Increasingly under capitalist-imperialism, less real wealth (i.e., human utility) is produced in proportion to overall economic activity and at greater cost to human and non-human life.

5: Ecologically unsustainable economic activity is inherent to capitalist-imperialism, whereby economic activity must expand even as much of it is tertiary and adds no real wealth in terms of the satisfying basic wants and needs. Abolishing such parasitic economic activity and reassigning it to restoring the natural element of wealth would aid in re-establishing the basic link between human and non-human life and provide for the flourishing of both.

6: The whole structure of society needs to be changed. Only revolution – the seizure of power away from one set of classes by another – can create the necessary conditions for such a transformation. Any such revolution, if it is to be successful, must advance the interests of the most exploited and oppressed sections of humanity, not merely the privileged subjects of neo-colonial imperialism.

7: A total ideological change of reconnection between human and non-human life will not fully take place until the basic structure of society (i.e. the mode of production) has been transformed into one of democratically producing long-term utility instead of profit. Nonetheless, the ideological sphere and subjective forces are a leading variable component where class struggle is carried out.

8: Those who adhere to the above points must get organized to make revolution possible.

Deep ecology is sometimes (though not always) well-intended and less reactionary than other prevalent First World-bound ideological perspectives. However, it is limited in its outlook and should be recognized by revolutionaries as such. In its place, Marxists must put forward alternative platforms and practicable solutions to reconcile a disunity between humanity and nature which is ever more acute under capitalist imperialism.

About these ads

9 thoughts on “Maoist Critique of the Deep Ecology Platform

  1. Okay, so your revolutionary ecology works right now, but what happens when the revolution happens and the workers, now in control of the means of production, decide to keep doing things the same way? This “Revolutionary Ecology” commodifies nature just as much as the zeitgeist does. Nature has no value in this framework besides it’s utility to humans. While it’s at least understood here that humans and nature are intertwined, inseperable, nature is still treated as something that’s only there for people to use it. Here, deep ecology’s recognition of nature’s intrinsic value reveals it’s value as a framework, applicable to many situations. Deep Ecology sets up a moral lens that anyone can use in any situation, whereas “Revolutionary Ecology” applies only to the current organization of power. While I think it’s a great set of tenets, I think that in order for a real revolution to take place, we need moral frameworks that we can apply to many situations, not just a one time plan.

  2. This is something of a non-response, a rehashing of what was already dealt with in the original critique of Deep Ecology.

    What happens when the revolution doesn’t happen, and instead capitalist-imperialist runs its course toward the ‘common ruin of all contending classes.’ Well, I assume deep ecologists will still be around. And though they are not effecting any change, I am reasonable sure they will still treat themselves as somehow above the rest of society by virtue of their effete morals.

    “Okay, so your revolutionary ecology works right now, but what happens when the revolution happens and the workers, now in control of the means of production, decide to keep doing things the same way?”

    Otherwise, this is a perfect example of liberalism. I assume you would simply prefer the world to continue as is rather than face the possibility of an imperfect revolution, one which doesn’t address all your particular concerns? ‘But, ya know, fuck starving people.’

    The whole bit about ‘deep ecology’ being a moral platform is shaky to begin with. A bunch of pastey people talking about the need to depopulate the world. Not only does it sound moral, but highly original too!

    “This “Revolutionary Ecology” commodities nature just as much as the zeitgeist does. Nature has no value in this framework besides it’s utility to humans. While it’s at least understood here that humans and nature are intertwined, inseparable, nature is still treated as something that’s only there for people to use it.”

    Again, this is the same muddle that was critiqued in the original piece. Sorry it wasn’t completely spelled out, but “revolutionary ecology” implies transition away from commodity production. But as the piece points out, in a communist society in which humans relate to the Earth based on broad utility rather commodity producing, stewardship of the natural world will itself become an economic activity..

    Moreover, I question from a society-wide stand point how else a post-capitalist humanity could relate to the natural world. The insistence that nature has an intrinsic value shields the fact that it is humans, and particularly privileged ones who are divorced from the basic masses, who champion this notion. I might ask, what is the basic element of such an intrinsic value of nature which is outside the realm of human well-being (yet nonetheless has only ever been considered or expressed by humans)?

    “While I think it’s a great set of tenets, I think that in order for a real revolution to take place, we need moral frameworks that we can apply to many situations, not just a one time plan.”

    This confuses what morality is and makes the classical liberal mistake of historicizing particular ideological trends which are present today. Moreover, ideas do not drive history forward. Rather, ideas are the product of society, especially of the productive forces and the relations of production. But I’m sure that while you are not busy moralizing and indugling in self-righteous lifestyle politics and philosophizing, you’ve spent a great deal of time studying the actual history of actual revolutions.

  3. Have you read Bookchin’s *Ecology of Freedom*? As long as you overlook his social anarchism and anti-marxism, he spends the entire introduction making a similar critique of Deep Ecology. He goes into more depth about the history of Deep Ecology and its troubling superstitious elements as well. In fact the whole book is worth a read. Even though the foundational anarchist framework is flawed, it is an influential book about radical ecology and has a lot in it that can and should intersect with a marxist approach to ecology.

  4. Nikolai

    I am somewhat taken aback by your response to Sean who in fact raises many key issues. As a regular visitor to RAIM, I am disappointed that you have descended to using swearing and insults which would cause personal insult to other readers on this site to deal with quite an intelligent set of thoughts whereas you can usually respond in a much more civilised way. As Mao said of Marxism; it is not a set of pre-conclusions, rather a methodological analysis, and as such, Sean is quite right in pointing out that Deep Ecology is to be used in a similar fashion, so as not to be bogged down in the heres and nows of a one time plan.

    What then, is the worth of your drone victims etc…?

    The fundamental goal of Marxism is the establishment of a world where one societal class does not have mastery over another. Is this perhaps because Marxists accept the intrinsic value of human life and do not base their usefulness on usefulness to oneself? If so, and we accept then that humans are a part of nature, why then would we stratify nature into one class who are entitled to utilise anything they like without due consideration for others (albeit under the guise of “ecology” – something the DEs would label this “Shallow Ecology)? This attitude can be likened to the bourgeois/petite-bourgeois attitude of “entitlement” prevalent in First World countries, and introducing more stratification would further reinforce separation/alienation of humans from nature, rather than demonstrating unity. The Deep Ecologist platform is thus an extension to central Marxist thought designed to incorporate the entire planet, and therefore contributes positively to revolutionary and scientific theory, and rejection of it revisionist.

    The insistence that nature does NOT have an intrinsic value is one born out of Euro-Amerikkkan/Christian philosophy, and as such is the prevalent ecological view in the First World. As for your reference to “lifestyle politics” – you do Maoists around the globe discredit with such a throw-away and loaded comment. Our stoic beliefs that “a revolution is not a dinner party”, and in “plain living and arduous struggle” have been the foundation of all successful revolutionary movements for the last 70 years. Full credit is deserved to those who actively search for alternate means of subsistence to monopoly-capitalism/imperialism. To throw these qualities which separate real from phony, and international from reactionary revolutionaries out of the window is completely unacceptable in the name of building a mass-movement. If Deep Ecologists (or Deep Greens as they are sometimes known) are only prevalent in the First World, the fact they are contributing both theoretically and practically to undermine the Imperialist cores (remembering that First World proletarians are overwhelmingly embourgeoisfied and are themselves much the source of ecological calamity), means they are much more ideologically aligned with the mass interests of the global south, given their understanding of the relation between humans and nature, and dedication to halting some of the most threatening by-products of Imperialism and global inequality – environmental degradation and resource scarcity.

  5. Comrade Elliot,

    While my tone was off, the general message presented is correct. Marxism is not simply a moral appeal regarding victims of modern imperialism, but is a guide to action, so to speak. Deep ecology is too broad, moralistic, liberal, and ahistoric to make bridge this gap, as was pointed out in the original article.

    Obviously Marxism has a moralistic element to it and ultimately seeks to create primarily through class struggle a new sort of proletarian humanism. But this is secondary to the ability to actually effect revolution in the first place.

    Lifestyle politics can not substitute for organized struggle and the building of dual power institutions. I am dismayed that making this distinction is somehow a cause for concern.

    I don’t think the original article discounted the progressive element of Deep Ecology. Ironically, others criticized the article for not tackling with greater resolution the strange obsession by deep ecologists regarding the need for depopulation yet their basic silence on the need for proletarian revolution.

    In this regard, I find the claim that DE is an extension of Marxism to be strange, considering it violates a few basic elements of the Marxist methodology. Perhaps elements of DE can be incorporated into the new cultures and moralities which spawn from revolutionary class struggles. I for one hope people no longer torture and murder animals in the future. But this won’t be accomplished alone by the moralistic finger waving and socially-isolated lifestyle politics of deep ecology.

  6. The author did not answer to the question “what happens when workers take control of the means of production”.
    You answered it by a non-sensical “we move away from comodity production”. The entire global ‘left’, as represented by China et al is not building some sort of alternative economic system, but simply re-distributing some of the growth to wider sections of their populations. Still the same planet-raping, tumor-like growth. Exponential growth on a finite sphere in competition with untold billions of other beings who have no ‘rights’ in either bourgeois capitalist society or the ellusive workerist communist society.

    The goal of the left, since Marx ( arguably since antiquity ) was to advocate the raising of ‘quality of life’ for all people to that of the burgeois.
    What is a ‘natural’ level of consumption and a ‘natural’ rate of increase of consumption for the bugreois ( or aristocrat, or king, or clerical ruler or pharoh or whatever ) is to be made ( by force ) the same for everybody on the planet.
    The average westerner consumes about 30 times more energy ( in Watts ) than ’3rd worlders’ who make those products. If you think pollution is bad now, wait until China is fully ‘socialist’ and every chinese consumes as much as americans used to before 2008. In my county, the only difference in nature-raping between the communist government and the capitalist one is that the former distributed the gains the latter concetrates them. Still, the same raping from the nature’s point of view.

    Here are the lunatic ramblings of a ‘communits’, for example:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/14/do-western-leftists-hate-socialist-countries/

    Note that billions of people driving cars and owning iPhones is the pinnacle of socialism.
    All those poor sobs jumping out the windows at Apple factories in China are happy workers under the awesomness of Chinese Socialism, for this abject technifascist cretin.

    The point is that THE FACTORY is the problem. You cannot have a mining process that is ecological, petrochemical processes that are ecological. Workers taking over the factory has the same value as jews taking over the concentration camp. The best thing they could do with it gas the nazi. After that IT WILL STILL BE A FUCKING CONCENTRATION CAMP.
    Same for THE FACTORY. After workers take control of it, it will still be, in essence, the embodyment of 500 years of western capitalist scientific theory which treats nature as something to be controlled and consumend.
    How the FUCK would a worker-controlled open-air mine be better than a capitalist controlled open-air mine?
    Do the populist “1%” drive 99% percent of the individual automobiles that destroyed the environment or did the “99%” ?
    What happens when ‘workers’ take over Northrop-Grumman factories? What possible socialist ‘use-values’ could they make out that production system ? Do they even want to do that ? Where is the solidarity of ‘workers’ making USA’s arsenal with the workers being exterminated by their products of labour ? How many workers walked out of the assebly lines over massacres in WW2, Koreea, Vietnam, countless locations in South/Central America, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia etc ? NONE. ZIP. ZERO. The benefits they extract from the system far outwight any notion of ‘morality’ towards other human beings.
    And you idiots think they would give a fuck about bees and trees and such ?

    Take 1000 workers from 1000 factories, put them together and tell them to come up with an industrial process that is compatible with nature. See how far you go with that.

    We, non-westeners who do not subscribe to all that ‘ethnocentric’ teleological bullcrap marxistm (or, in non-politically correct terms: technofascist, workersit white supremacistm), see that your ‘working class’ happily builds all the genocidal products used agains the planet and non-capitalist societies as long as they get a ‘fair share’ of the profit and get to enjoy the ‘benefits’ of the technofascist capitalist socitey. Ditto for the planet-raping ascension of Chinese ‘socialism’ which looks more and more lke the phase USA was in 60 years ago.
    Who built all the ‘commodities’ that were used to enact the Half-A-Jewish-Holocause against the people of Vietnam, and the uncountable ecocide against the non-human nature there ? THE FUCKING WORKING CLASS ! Remind us how many workers walked off the napalm missile assmbly lines to join protests ?
    How many ‘working class’ westerners are hard at work making drones and software used to manipulate, control and destroy the planet on a collosal scale ?
    There must be an enormous ammount of ‘workers’ in the West dedicated to building and maintaining your military. How can they be ‘transitioned’ to a non-commodity production system when they don’t have a problem with the genocidal-production system they are in right now ?

    The crux of the matter is that people everywhere buy into the technofascist western ideology and WANT all the benefits they see westernes enjoying, irresepctive of the social or ecological consequences. Just like NSA can spy on everybody because every ignorant creting just jumped the bandwagon and shared all personal life on Facebook, wihtout ever asking himself/herself or others ‘how does this work?”, the same happend 60 years ago, when every cretin bought a car for pure selfsh reasons and destroyed the environment.

    Your entire edifice is constructed on the fallacy of rational, aware beings. The vast majority of people do not know and could not know the entire chain of consequences from ore in the ground to ready-made iPad.
    The fallacy of the infantile, primitive commune where everybody knows everybody and anyone in that community has the practical and intellectual skill to understand all the work done and what it implies, does not scale to a global community producing extremly sophisticated technological goods.
    If it were so easy, any piss-poor anarcho-eco-socialst/communits could MAKE and iPAD in his or her local community, she or he could MAKE a solar panel in her or his community and so on.
    That is an obvious impossibility. As long as you demand unrestricted access to all individuals to every possible product of a technological society

    In my own country, the technofascist workerists ( i’m sorry, marxist communists ) wiped their asses with the native culture and build planet raping factories that decimated the way of life of the communities and exterminated forests, lakes and rivers. The result were stupid animals, working in factories, enjoying factory-produced individual automobiles, factory produced concrete cities, factory produced canned food.

    The communits revolutions from the begging of the 1900 forward only took capitalist planet-raping technologies and put them into the hands of ignorant, technofascist idiots who behaved identical to the capitalist: growth at any cost.

    Why don’t you stop with the useless vomit and write a set of books on what would an ecologial technological process to extract rare-earth metals look like ?
    You are all, at best, trained in social science, with zero understanding of ‘hard’ science and engineering, beyond an infantile level, yet you are all so sure you can do anything. Yet, when the discussion turns ‘real’ into real questions, that demand real answers from people with knowledge and expecience in specialized domani knowledge, you all display an astonishing ignorance and a ideologially motivated pride in said ignorance.

    Your solutions are along the lines of ‘solar panels in the community’. Well, who makes the solar panels ( a lot of ‘leftist’ retards answer ‘wallmart’ or whatever ) ? Where are the solar panels made ? What are the social and ecological consequences of making solar panels ? Or of making the machines that make the machines that make the machines that make the machine that make solar panels ? How do you position solar panels ? The most efficient positionsing of solar panels and wind turbines is based upon scietific data from sattelites ? What are the social and environemntal consequences of the technologial trajectory to make all the enormous infrastructure that is needed to make the sattlite, the launch vechicle and so on ?

    How many million acres of land would need to be rendered useless, being covered with ‘ecological’ solar panels and wind turbines such that their total output maches the current output needed to sustain all those factories employing all those workers ? How the fuck will you make computers ‘locally’ ? How the fuck will you make ‘locally’ heavy Delta launcher rockets needed to place sattelites in orbit, needed to optimize placement of solar panels and wind turbines ? What kind of ‘people’s council’ could possibly debate, ‘rationally’ on subjects of sophisticated engineering and science ? You counfuse using highly sophisticated techology with controlling highly sophisticated technology. Controlling means understanding and ‘the 99%’ ( pun very much intended) have no fucking ideea how 99% of any commodity they lay their hands on works, on how the enormosly complex forest ( as in an acyclical graph ) of production processes need for even the most ‘simple’ commodity work.

    And, in the last analisys, you place humans ( workers particualrly ) above nature. Your ideology is ‘inclusive’ and ‘egalitarian’ in the same way Athenian ‘democracy’ was inclusive and egaliatarian, the same way American ‘democracy’ was or even Southern slave-society was. The unquestioned and unrestricted ‘needs’ ( whims ) of those who proclaim equality are above any consideration. If ‘the workers’ need to be kept employed in planet-raping factories and they need to be given the same social status ( i’m sorry, ‘basic needs’ ) commodities that the resented ruling classes enjoy, then so be it, FUCK THE PLANET, ALL POWER TO THE WORKING CLASS ! MOW DOWN THAT FOREST, WORKERS NEED IPHONES AND CRYSLERS AND JUICY BEEF STEAK !

    As another person stated above, the goal of marxism is the abolition of class relations and redistribution of wealth. Class relations are between human beings, not between humans and non-human nature. Redistribution of wealth does not equal ecological natural exchanges. Aboloishing the ‘evil capitalist commodity production’ by replacing it with the ‘good communits social necessity production’ sais nothing about how and what is produced, let alone if individual automobiles or iPhones are a ‘social necessity’.
    If ‘the 99%’ vote that personal automobile and iPhones are a ‘social necessity’ and, thus, the new glorious communits society sould produce these two ‘social necessities’ :
    “giant tank for my social penis enlargement and unrestraint freedom of movement irrespective of ecolocial consequences” and
    “smartphone because I am too stupid to read a book and need to engage in virtual relations and vritual sympathy begging on social networks, and vanity selfies”
    then, should we just set our newly liberated ‘workers’ to their newly aquired factories and make cars and iPhones for 6.5 billion people ?
    If you ask young people what do they want it is “car” and “smartphone”. Do they want this becaus some Kantian self refelection or Marxist understanding of the socio-economic life, or do they want it because they see others whom they precieve as socially superior ?
    Even in northen Africa or eastern Europe, what are considered extremly poor people ( equivalinet of 150 EUR/month in Egypt and 300 EUR/month in Ukraina, Rumania and so on) ‘invest’ in expensive smartphones and designer clothes. Two generations of people between 15 and 35 years old spent 0% on educational self improvement and as much as 50% of their meagely wages on ‘luxury’ phones, clothes and so on. Go tell these people about Bangladesh’s horror sweatshops where their precious clothes are made or about the factories and mines where the components and raw materials of their smartphones and gadgets are made. See what reactionary crap they vomit.
    See how many men and women in eastern Europe are turning to virtual prositituion on inline ‘webcam sites’ … ( they are growing at about 200-300% per year, depending on access to fast internet ) Take the time and study them, most use the gains from virtual prostitution to purchase ‘social status’ commodities like iPhones, ‘premium brand’ apperal and so on.
    If these are the ’99%’ who to whom we should listen and for whom we should produce ‘social needs’ then, no thanks.

    How about we create a metric to measure the ‘victims’ of capitalism and imperialism ? Certanly the non-capitalist, non-hypertechnolocial cultures being exterminated all over the world, are indeed victims, while the ‘working class’ of the western and westernized nations, deeply invested ideologially, benefit from all the products of colonialism and capitalism and are ‘victims’ in the abject sense that they don’t get to drive around in giant tanks and satisfy any imbecile selfish whim, like the upper classes of corporate workers and capitalists.

  7. Also, the most objective real-life lesson to be learned is that of Cuba.
    ALL of Cuba’s transformation to an quasi-ecological means of producing social needs (as much as it is possible over there) – see rooftop farms, oxen-driven agriculture, eco-agri-forestry, eco-planning etc – are NOT the result of socialst or communits planning for the benefit of the society, but of the extreme scarcity created by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp ! A complete breakdown of access to western technology and energy ( and the technological processes and products of the ‘communist’ Russia and eastern Europe were as capitalist and western as possible ) forced them to an ‘ecologial’ path to self sufficency.

    It is clear that only a total breakdown of ceptialist production and access to technology and energy, a kind of ‘Special Period’ for the planet, is the only way to break away from the equally redundant falacies of capitalism and workersit communism/socialism into a path DIVERGENT from the western concept of the factory.

    As we’ve seen lately, all was needed was to find some oil reserves off the coast of Cuba for the ‘socialist’ governement there to quiclky look for western investors to exploit it ( the key word is ‘exploit’ ).

    You all fear that lack of access to technology you consider a ‘natural’ or ‘human’ right ( which is absurd ) will create mass violence, but that is only because people in your societies are selfish and greedy. The reasons they are such are inconsequential. I do not care the capitalist system made them. It could be argued that there are many cultures in the world under incomparable worse pressure than that of workers in capitalist societies who still resist and do not embark on a selfish, individualist consumption trajectory.
    As I’ve said, irrespective of ‘why’ westernes behave like this, the problem is that they do behave like this and will violently resist any notion of redistribuion of resoures from their whims ( needs ) which will be required to build, from the ground up, an ecolocigal society.

    Cuba got away because most of the pathological burgeois elements fled to US.

    Where would the pathologially narcissist individualists who can’t live without cars, nikes, gaps, wine, iWatch and so on are suppose to flee in a world-wide reconfiguration of society ?

    What will happen when, like in Cuba, all the ‘intellectual workers’ fled to US ? What happens when all the intellectual workers, which are burgeois to their DNA, pick their bags and move somewhere where their priviledge and social status and private property is ‘respected’ ? What if all nuclear engineers pack up and leave for … Abu Dabi ? What ‘popular council of workers’ will know how to shutdown and decommision a nuclear powerplant (fast enough to prevent a catastrophe) ?

  8. OK, the first one was a somewhat unwarranted ramblig, but I still hold to what I’ve said there, just that I will condense it into :

    From Smith and Marx ( classical economics ) the focus of economic thought ( by economy I mean the production and distribution of commodities in society ) was place on the production process : the ‘labour theory of value’ – value comes from people working.

    From the neoclassical economists ( which I despise so much I won’t even bother to name ) we got the ‘market theory of value’ – the utility of the commodity determines its price in the free market and the focus of economic thought was placed on exchange relations.

    Both these are wrong. We need an as of yet untitled category of economic thought (ecological economy?) which changes the focus of economic thought on the ecological consequences of production, distribution and consumption of commodities by human society. For this we have almost zero knowledge, we barely have any concepts and we are ladden with the antropocentric view of economy, the burgeois-liberal concept of ‘individual human rights’ ( which excludes nature since it is not a human individual ), and the marxist-workersit concept of ‘class equality’ ( which, again, excludes nature beacuse trees and bees and all that flies and swims (to quote somebody) are not individuals selling their labour)

    The depth of our ignorance and lack of even primitive theoretical concepts should put any intelligent individual ( yeah, I know, most can safetly fail the test ) at doubt as we can ever do something in the timeframe we have.

    As long as ‘human needs’ are predicated on what the technofascist mode of production can pump out, there is no escape. People will always want a car, an iPhone and so on. There is no ‘feedback’ mechanism, just like in electoral democracy, where those who delegate responsability (vote) are not held responsable and largely do not suffer the consequences of the actions set forth by those to which they delegate responsability. Similarly, ‘choosing’ to drive a car has no feedback on the person doing the choice and it is an empty choice in the light of ecological economy ( and, for that matter, it demolishes the notion of ‘rational choice’ is classical capitalist economy or a ‘planned production’ of a communist one ) simply because ‘the 99%’ of those who ‘choose’ to drive cars have no ideea how a car is made, how the oil is extracted, how even the simplest step of the production process happens and what are its ecological and social consequences.

    Advocating unrestrained access to unimited ‘needs’ is a path to failure. Humans should have duties towards their society and the natural world they inhabit. Duties imply a conscious understanding and a planned approach. The freedom do buy and iPad implies freedom FROM the consequences of making that iPad. Same for freedom to buy and drive a car. Certanly, if your family was melted with white phosphorous because it sat on large deposits of oil needed to drive the cars, or your home is being swept aways by climat change caused by untold numbers of unrestraint individuals practicing their ‘freedom’ of choosing and driving a car, you might think twice.
    This can be seen in the sad fact that people that enjoy eating meat would refuse to kill and chop down the animal. How many would buy an Ipad if iPads were sold only to people who had to work 3 month in each step of the production process of an iPad, from the rare earth-mine, to the Foxxcon sweatshops, to the Apple campus ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s