tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post6377905403989359276..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: A Radical Critique of the “Green” Environmental MovementFrank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-24320183215845421312011-04-06T00:12:43.805-05:002011-04-06T00:12:43.805-05:00Thanks, Richard S., for your feedback and favorabl...Thanks, Richard S., for your feedback and favorable review of the piece itself. I will have to look into the thinkers you mention and maybe look to expand my critique, or scale it back to look at some other possible alternatives that look feasible.Ross Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753431796536019173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-16445715447102717582011-04-04T02:29:22.764-05:002011-04-04T02:29:22.764-05:00Interesting post from Ross Wolfe, and I agree stro...Interesting post from Ross Wolfe, and I agree strongly with the critiques of certain elements of the Green movements as we know them. <br /><br />However, looking through it, I see the conspicuous absence of mention of certain radical thinkers and groups who don't fit so neatly into these characterizations/categories. <br /><br />Curiously, one thinker not mentioned is Murray Bookchin, an anarchist and ecologist who became disliked by many environmentalist anarchists exactly because of his <a href="http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html" rel="nofollow">strong stance against lifestylists</a>, whom he discussed as being opposite to the "social anarchists." However, Bookchin, as the founder of a movement for Social Ecology, was himself very much an environmentalist at the same time that he was a proponent of the historical kind of anarchism rooted in the history of movements such as the Spanish Revolution (which he wrote about extensively). <br /><br />Menwhile, what about the Green Marxists, such as Andre Gorz? I became a big fan of some of Gorz's writing about 15 years ago, and I think he was superb at combining a certain kind of Marxism with environmentalism (if anyone hasn't seen it, read his classic, Ecology As Politics).<br /><br />Personally, I tend to focus more on class issues, but I can be sympathetic to a thorough critique of technology, and in my own Marxism (which admittedly has been informed by anarchism), I can side very much with those "infantile leftists" that Lenin ranted about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that category include the likes of Pannekoek and the advocates for workers' councils? And, to a certain extent, Rosa Luxemburg... <br /><br />I actually agree with the idea of trying to create ideal standards within your own movement that at least somewhat resemble the broader social world that you want to achieve. I don't think as much in terms of lifestylism as I do in terms of creating activist groups that internally promote anti-hierarchical structures and principles of genuine, direct democracy (which, of course, is very different from parliamentary democracy). Unfortunately, many anarchist groups fall short of doing so, mainly because either they choose to avoid rules and structure altogether ("tyranny of structurelessness") or because the members themselves aren't vigilant enough at ensuring against creeping, unofficial authoritarianism and hierarchy (which can be the worst kind, actually).<br /> <br />I do think that, historically, many left communists, whether or not you want to agree with them, actually did combine a Marxist critique of class struggle with an approach that sought to create more ideal, directly democratic social structures in a more immediate way. And it is arguable that Marx, who once praised the Paris Commune as an example of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," possibly would have favored some of the experiments explored by the council communists over the example set by Leninists.Richard S.http://nevergotusedtoit.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-54572906726041707812011-04-02T18:45:54.157-05:002011-04-02T18:45:54.157-05:00I think 'Stupid' IS a more appropriate mon...I think 'Stupid' IS a more appropriate moniker for you.Titan Uranus 2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03493362442009006550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-55508942814446183542011-04-02T12:01:34.840-05:002011-04-02T12:01:34.840-05:00Titan:
I think 'Midget' would be a more a...Titan:<br /><br />I think 'Midget' would be a more appropriate moniker for you.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-65229795121159771572011-04-01T18:35:27.804-05:002011-04-01T18:35:27.804-05:00None of this has anything to do with 'socialis...<i>None of this has anything to do with 'socialism'. </i><br /><br />Awww, poor Gert. He ran out of people to rob... er-r-rr-r-r-rr-r... tax... for the socialist cause.Titan Uranus 2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03493362442009006550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-5207769000565065992011-04-01T09:44:22.578-05:002011-04-01T09:44:22.578-05:00I tend to agree with you there, Gert. There's ...I tend to agree with you there, Gert. There's a lot of bankers and Wall Street executives that should be serving serious prison time to this day. It's not just them though, its a broad swath of America that has just gotten too dependent on government subsidies. They're fine up to a point, by the way, but they've just gotten too much over time. They demand more and more every year, just like a Cabinet Department, and after so long it gets to the point where its unsustainable.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-14662868195591843212011-04-01T08:44:26.437-05:002011-04-01T08:44:26.437-05:00Pagan:
I’m pretty convinced though that we’re set...Pagan:<br /><br />I’m pretty convinced though that we’re setting ourselves up for yet another ‘Global financial crisis’, just around the next corner. The Masters of the Universe’ have learned nothing from the last one and haven’t had to experience any pain for the damage they caused. Bad behaviour is being rewarded here. I suggest anyone try and apply this to their kids and see what little monsters you will create.<br /><br />Meanwhile Joe Blokes is supposed to pick up the tab. Never have the middle classes been hurting more.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-5319804717397413062011-04-01T08:35:55.197-05:002011-04-01T08:35:55.197-05:00Thersites:
”As I've said before, Internationa...Thersites:<br /><br /><i>”As I've said before, International Socialism, the Socialist International and National Socialism are equally communist. Having a social welfare program in a country whose economy is based on the supervaluation of value (capital) means that the nation is essentially socialist.”</i><br /><br />‘Socialist Britain’s’ new Government new/old adage is ‘Britain’s open for all business’, repeated ad nauseam. It’s believed by people like George Osborne with the zeal of the true believer that British business will get us out of debt and that it needs to be incentivated to the hilt. <br /><br />Corporation tax has already been lowered to ‘stimulate the world of business’. Meanwhile cuts in public spending are rife, are starting to hurt and are leading to some of the largest demos we’ve ever seen in this country (500,000 last count).<br /><br />Tory economic policy is largely a continuation of Thatcherite/Blairite policies. The New Labour opposition makes it no secret that they would have done much the same, only slower, slightly gentler.<br /><br />None of this has anything to do with 'socialism'. You’re using the term as a smear, then start believing you’re using an ‘objective definition’. You’re a bit stuck in Cold War mode, if you ask me… <br /><br />Ren: thanks for the clarification…Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-70643709334527940462011-03-31T06:34:19.853-05:002011-03-31T06:34:19.853-05:00Its not about paying off the entire debt, its abou...Its not about paying off the entire debt, its about keeping it to a reasonably small percentage of the GDP. If it is kept to under ten percent, or at the most just barely over ten percent, its not really a problem. Its a problem when it gets to the high teens, and twenty percent range, and above. The fairy tale has got to end sooner or later. And if that means everybody takes a hit, and the standard of living is lowered, so be it. That beats the hell out of the whole country going bankrupt and everything crashing.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-86840954710056556462011-03-30T23:27:57.628-05:002011-03-30T23:27:57.628-05:00Davidly: I think this hardly the time for cynicism...Davidly: I think this hardly the time for cynicism. Workers occupied the state government in Wisconsin. Nobody would predict Wisconsin would be the place the world would focus on in relationship to class struggle.<br /><br />The Greens here aren't really functioning as a party. Some chapters even support Democratic candidates. Some don't even do electoral politics.<br /><br />Sonia: Your position opposing the American Revolution gets you heat from everyone.<br /><br />Gert: I wasn't clear. I was saying I agreed with you about Nazism and environmentalism.<br /><br />The UK carried quite a bit of derivatives for a socialist country. Blair a socialist (LOL).<br /><br />Thersites: The difference between Nazism and Stalinism is that Nazism was based on glorifying small business.<br /><br />Ross: I try to convince anarchists that the Paris Commune principles, should be a point of unity. Some as Larry G agree.<br /><br />Pagan: The whole concept of paying off the national debt is a joke. It will never happen. Austerity is unnecessary.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71300003724108068332011-03-30T18:34:32.415-05:002011-03-30T18:34:32.415-05:00As I've said before, International Socialism, ...As I've said before, International Socialism, the Socialist International and National Socialism are equally communist. Having a social welfare program in a country whose economy is based on the supervaluation of value (capital) means that the nation is essentially socialist. :PThersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-90912704237324276192011-03-30T16:15:11.838-05:002011-03-30T16:15:11.838-05:00As I've said before, both free-market capitali...As I've said before, both free-market capitalism and state-interventionist capitalism are equally capitalist. Having a social welfare program in a country whose economy is based on the supervaluation of value (capital) means that the nation is still essentially capitalist.<br /><br />Second of all, Marxism is thoroughly anti-state and anti-bureaucratic. But unlike the anarchists, who propose the immediate liquidation of the state and want to let the chips fall as they may (in utter chaos), Marxism-Leninism is based upon the principle that the old state apparati must be smashed, and a socialist state must be established to manage production and distribution. Once it has removed all the vestiges of the old system and rebuilt society by eliminating the cycle of crises and overproduction that result from capital, the state will "wither away," as Engels put it.<br /><br />Finally, more relevant to this post: A post-capitalist society will not be one of scarcity or showing some sort of abstract "respect" for nature, with eco-friendly abstention and so forth. Socialism will mean the more self-conscious mastery of Nature, such that even capitalism couldn't achieve. Capitalism dominates nature, but in a sloppy and anarchical fashion. Under socialism humanity would have total dominion over the Earth for the benefit of society.Ross Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753431796536019173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-49387025265492728702011-03-30T15:15:38.775-05:002011-03-30T15:15:38.775-05:00Pagan:
Many of your examples of Government’s over...Pagan:<br /><br />Many of your examples of Government’s overbearing and expensive meddling are undoubtedly true and apply also this side of the pond.<br /><br />And yet a lot of it is necessary. I ran a restaurant for about 5 years and got seriously annoyed with the ‘food hygiene people’, who made life hard and expensive for businessmen. And yet, I wouldn’t want to do away with them: there simply are too many cowboy operators in the field. It ‘self-regulates’ itself, you say? Yeah, AFTER they’ve killed a few people they usually go out of business. Not my kind of ‘self-regulation’!<br /><br /><i>”And if you "tax the rich" to control the deficit, then you just have more lay-offs from the work force.”</i><br /><br />Okay. Here ‘call me Dave’ is avoiding precisely those very tax hikes for the rich. Result? Massive cuts and lay-offs elsewhere. That’s why we’re beginning to see a strong reaction to the coalition government’s strategy. By the time Dave’s finished "reshaping the economy" we’ll have more unemployment than under Thatcher. But the rich will be safe. Why? Because the Tories ARE the party of the RICH!Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-19531349044364536162011-03-30T15:03:09.444-05:002011-03-30T15:03:09.444-05:00Thersites:
”You set YOUR threshold for capitalism...Thersites:<br /><br /><i>”You set YOUR threshold for capitalism as the "USA" and Britain of today? WOW.”</i><br /><br />Straw man. I said Britain wasn’t a Socialist country. It’s largely a mixed economy leaning towards free markets.<br /><br /><i>”Government is always the "anti" free-market.”</i><br /><br />Pure baloney. Not worth refuting. Wouldn't even know where to start...<br /><br />I didn’t say the USA is laissez faire capitalism either (it clearly isn’t), just that LFC is a (your) pipe dream and not viable. We know what it leads to.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-33033776684556910422011-03-30T14:56:12.816-05:002011-03-30T14:56:12.816-05:00...the only exception being for the "common d......the only exception being for the "common defense".Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-81195898881177528892011-03-30T14:49:49.000-05:002011-03-30T14:49:49.000-05:00btw - I'm sure I didn't mention this, but ...btw - I'm sure I didn't mention this, but I am soooooooo free market, that I wouldn't even allow <i>corporations</i> to exist. I don't approve of laws that treat corporate immortals such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struldbrug" rel="nofollow">Struldbrugs</a> differently from mere mortals. But then, I don't aspire to working in the <a href="http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lagado.htm" rel="nofollow">Grand Academy of Projectors in Lagado</a>, as most of you "chattering-class intellectuals" do, either. ;)Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-7561570540340978902011-03-30T14:42:53.518-05:002011-03-30T14:42:53.518-05:00Is this laissez-faire capitalism?
Government is a...Is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_busting" rel="nofollow">this</a> <i>laissez-faire</i> capitalism?<br /><br />Government is always the "anti" free-market.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-24584665211462844322011-03-30T14:35:44.215-05:002011-03-30T14:35:44.215-05:00Perhaps if you put the threshold for calling somet...<i>Perhaps if you put the threshold for calling something ‘Socialist’ so low, it should come as no surprise that you venerate ‘Capitalism’ too.</i><br /><br />You set YOUR threshold for capitalism as the "USA" and Britain of today? WOW. Talk about a low threshold for <i>laissez-faire</i> capitalism...!<br /><br />You should re-examine YOUR definitions.<br /><br /><i>Way to score in your opponent's goal.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley" rel="nofollow">Smoot-Hawley</a> was <i>laissez-faire</i> capitalism? Whooda Thunkit!Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-11094296182269548412011-03-30T13:39:02.069-05:002011-03-30T13:39:02.069-05:00Only that's not what I'm saying, Gert. Whe...Only that's not what I'm saying, Gert. When you have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, you are spending too much money, and you are doing that basically by having a bloated, bureaucratic government. And they accomplish nothing. They don't do what they claim they intend to do, in fact, they make things worse, then use that as an excuse to demand even more money, even more power. It's never ending. That's what bureaucrats do. They go to Congress and ask for more money, then they have to come up with excuses for why they need it. Then they generally get it because politicians and their supporters have a vested interest. <br /><br />There are laws. Nobody is talking about doing away with every law on the books. We can debate what ones are justified and what ones are not, and what ones are superfluous. <br /><br />And if somebody breaks a law, that's what courts are for. We don't need a small army in every cabinet department running roughshod through the countryside closing down family farms and regional food producers for every instance of bacteria found in, of all things, a farm that produces quality cheeses, for example. They are making a product that ages and draws mold. How could there fucking not be bacteria from time to time?<br /><br />It just adds to the deficit and on top of that, it puts a drain on economic growth. And if you "tax the rich" to control the deficit, then you just have more lay-offs from the work force. And on top of that, you still have all the other things I mentioned that is still draining the economy, artificially inflating prices. In order to make a profit, businesses have to raise their prices, because of government interference. Then I pay, not the business man. Shit, maybe I'd like to be able to buy some good cheese from time to time. Fuck that, I can't afford that shit, so I'm stuck with shitty fucking Velveeta. Thank you, prick Democrats.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-33034545515101511172011-03-30T13:28:18.513-05:002011-03-30T13:28:18.513-05:00Things went well in the US until the late thirties...<i>Things went well in the US until the late thirties...</i><br /><br />Way to score in your opponent's goal.davidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754707934311038544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-14587866933913183972011-03-30T12:18:35.461-05:002011-03-30T12:18:35.461-05:00Pagan:
”Anybody with a brain should be able to se...Pagan:<br /><br /><i>”Anybody with a brain should be able to see the logic inherent in the proposition that the bigger government becomes, the more expensive it gets. What's so fucking hard to comprehend about that?”</i><br /><br /><i>Anybody with a brain should be able to see the logic inherent in the proposition that the more a society goes’ pay as you go’, the more expensive lots of products and services become. What's so fucking hard to comprehend about that?</i><br /><br />At the end of the day it boils down to whether you want to have a society or not. In your wet dreams of (basically) no Government, each fends for his own and the idea of solidarity becomes a taboo, something that’s claimed to be ‘counter-biological’. This way you end up turning the Shining City on the Hill into a network of isolated gated communities for the haves, surrounded by a jungle for the have nots. I guess it’s a cultural thing: your dream, my nightmare...Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-87512589886241202402011-03-30T12:03:34.094-05:002011-03-30T12:03:34.094-05:00Things went well in the US until the late thirties...Things went well in the US until the late thirties, and it doesn't take a genius to see that the more government intervenes in the economy and in all aspects of society, the worse things get. Education is one example. Health care is another. Every time there's a slight or perceived problem and government tries to "help", the long-term result is, things just get worse. So the government steps up to try to solve the problems they themselves have either created or exacerbated, and voila-things get even worse. That's true of everything, including, by the way, the environment, and, yes-farming.<br /><br />The bigger government gets, the worse it gets, it just gets more and more Byzantine, more and more inefficient, intrusive, and corrupt. Anybody with a brain should be able to see the logic inherent in the proposition that the bigger government becomes, the more expensive it gets. What's so fucking hard to comprehend about that?SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-69402979697349218622011-03-30T12:00:55.012-05:002011-03-30T12:00:55.012-05:00Thersites:
When you invoke the much touted canard...Thersites:<br /><br />When you invoke the much touted canard of ‘Socialist Britain’, I invoke my own version of the Godwin Principle: you’ve lost the argument.<br /><br />Perhaps if you put the threshold for calling something ‘Socialist’ so low, it should come as no surprise that you venerate ‘Capitalism’ too.<br /><br />Nest: ‘Obama is a Marxist!’ Despite all your alleged reading you still manage to use the wrong definitions. Well done! I’ll put it down to the ‘capitalist education system’. LOL.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-64895640682416611692011-03-30T11:39:51.036-05:002011-03-30T11:39:51.036-05:00The US is young and will learn (eventually) that u...<i>The US is young and will learn (eventually) that unfettered Capitalism leads to the gutter.</i><br /><br />We've been around since 1786... and we're not in the "gutter" yet. We've ceeded it (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXafL0D9QtY" rel="nofollow">the gutter</a>) to socialist Great Britain. ;)Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-24647981160124367892011-03-30T11:32:13.198-05:002011-03-30T11:32:13.198-05:00Thersites:
”They have to let the invisible hand o...Thersites:<br /><br /><i>”They have to let the invisible hand of laissez-faire DO it's magic...”</i><br /><br />Then I’m sure you’re aware of the kind of ‘magic’ that laissez-faire Capitalism caused in Europe during Victorian times and the First Industrial Revolution: abject divides between the HAVE ALLs and the HAVE NOTHINGs with insufferable degrees of suffering on the latter side. Trickle down? MY ARSE!!! No bad libruhls to blame or ‘welfare hammocks’ in that historical case, just plain ole’ greed, indifference to suffering and a ‘let’s trample over dead bodies to achieve MY wealth’ attitude…<br /><br />The US is young and will learn (eventually) that unfettered Capitalism leads to the gutter. The fact that you personally are more than willing to entertain ideas about all sorts of ‘theoretical’ capitalist solutions that are supposed to work on ‘paper’ but never in reality, is just one manifestation of that. They say Communism was like a religion. Well, American Capitalist dreams still ARE a religion. But no longer on the rise, thank the Lawd!Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.com