As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.
As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)
defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe
Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!
I think it is mostly harmless
I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?
Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.
I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)
poverty elevation or technological progress
This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.
It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.
All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.
I think you might not be getting the full picture.
Agree that PRC is now the world’s biggest polluter, but it’s also the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research. Also always worth keeping in mind that the West still houses the majority of its manufacturing in China. China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research
<sarcasm>Yes, please tell me more about how green capitalism is going to save the world.</sarcasm>
You may find it interesting to read or watch something on the topic. I would strongly recommend End:Civ, and to a lesser degree Planet of the Humans which is way less interesting from a political perspective, but has great explanation of why “green” capitalism isn’t green and “renewable” energies aren’t renewable.
TLDR: “clean energy” and technological innovation won’t save us (source: tech person myself, please don’t trust us to make serious decisions for the future of humanity). only less consumption a serious deconstruction of the car/concrete society, high ecological standards (think no paints, no plastics, no concrete in daily life) and a serious fight against planned obsolescence (and intellectual property of any kind that makes it possible in the first place) might have a chance to save humanity, not exactly as we know it (over-abundance and misery) but as a society of reasonable-abundance and justice.
China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
Sure. I’m not here to vilify China and defend western empires. I’m an anarchist, i strongly oppose any State though i don’t take a neutral stance when it comes to military interventions. My heart stands with the Kurds and the Palestinians and all the oppressed peoples on this planet. Fire to all colonial empires, even France (my birthplace) and China!
Firstly, you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism. Investing != Capitalism. If you don’t get that please let me know and I can explain further.
Secondly, as a fellow technologist, and someone whose undergrad program director was a not so closeted anarchist, I understand the argument you’re making and have also read several books that advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies, and the like. I understand your argument and my response is that based on the current trajectory of global society the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution in the United States and Europe concurrently (at least within a 20 year time span).
The reality is capital flight is a real practice with the advent of transnational corporations.
My logic for arguing for technology is that we’re not likely to see a revolution in any major western power anytime soon because of the economic weight of the global financial system and imperial hegemon of the USA. Until we reach a crisis point there will not be the change you’re advocating for. However, much like how Britain overbuilt railways in the 18th century, or the internet stock mania led to the current tech firms dominance today, the creation of for example, lead free perovskite solar panels, open source grid distribution technology, and other sustainable technologies, will allow us to love more sustainably after the crisis.
My interpretation of your argument is that you think we’ll somehow transition to a low resource use economy (realistically how besides revolution?) and then live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism? I don’t see it.
I do hope I’m wrong of course, I particularly hate planned obselesence lately (among all the other terrible things).
you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism
Not exactly. You specifically mentioned China, which is an industrial capitalist nation.
advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies
I don’t promote depopulation or small-scale societies. I understand the Neo-malthusian anarcha-feminist analyses from the 19th century (Émilie Lamotte for example) but since then the material conditions have changed greatly: humanity is now producing more commodities that the entire planet needs, and industry started planned obsolescence in the 1920s (years after Lamotte’s death) to make sure people would keep buying.
So yes i’m advocating for the end of consumerism (the cult of consumption), but not necessarily against consumption itself, as long as it’s done following ethical/environmental/cooperative standards.
the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution
I like to hope otherwise, but i agree with you. According to Lucy Parsons (a founder of the IWW), the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace atany price, except atthe price of liberty.
the creation of (…) sustainable technologies
That would be nice, except it’s clearly not what’s happening. First, because as a tech person you sure know commercial interests are always higher priority than technical/ethical interests. Second, because even if we do come up with better batteries or lead-free solar panels, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
There is no such thing as clean energy on a big scale. I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible (just like aliens) but there’s nothing even close to that anyone is currently researching. Energy is easy to produce/consume in small quantities, but big cities are by all criteria a human failure: more concrete (very polluting, requires a lot of fossil fuels and sand), bigger/centralized energy/food consumption (far away from production sites).
live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism?
Well i’m not against “progress” when it is measurable, and actually serving the people. But, as Kirkpatrick Sale points out (not advocating for the man’s other analysis): Progress is the myth that assures us that full-speed-ahead is never wrong. Ecology is the discipline that teaches us that it is disaster.
So if slower progress is the way to ensure that life can go on on this planet, i’m all for it. If we can achieve progress without murdering millions of species and actively poisoning most water streams, i’m all for it.
But currently the situation is such that actual destruction of the environment keeps on growing on a global scale: more concrete, more deforestation, more electricity for smart toasters and cryptocoins for your Alexa-powered fridge, more highly-polluting electronics materials in all aspects of human life, more lithium-powered wireless devices everywhere…
So the situation is exponentially getting worse (as you may notice from taking a look at “natural” disasters of the past decades). The only way technological progress could save us is:
all governments and industries worldwide stop producing new products, and pool all their resources into research for renewable/durable materials
which as a consequence, requires eliminating both intellectual property and planned obsolescence, which are key pillars of modern capitalism
I would love this scenario, but honestly i don’t find it more realistic than a global revolution. In case you are not noticing, more and more people are struggling for food and water and other basic services, while there is an abundance of those on a global scale. Most rivers we know of on the planet are currently undrinkable due to human pollution, so we are actually fighting for survival as a planet.
Whether we’ll have a global revolution to dismantle industrial capitalism? Not sure. I sure hope so, but i’m not confident at all. What i do know with 100% certainty is that the alternative of relying on the good will of industrialized nations will not take us anywhere. Why am i so confident this is not happening? Let me explain. All colonial empires around the globe in the past decades are:
very concerned with material sovereignty and securing supply chains for all critical resources (including international disputes about water!)
more strictly enforcing their borders, and setting up massive recruitment campaigns for the military, including the return of (previously-dismantled) military service and mandatory nationalist indoctrination (like here in France)
working to secure international support in case of conflict (like France joining NATO under Sarkozy)
working to privatize/secure huuuuuuuuuuge areas in case of a global collapse of civilization (heard about Putin’s castle on the black sea? privatization of public lands across America/Europe?)
All of the big colonial empires, France, USA, China, Russia, Israel, Turkey, Brazil, India, Japan… They’re all preparing for increased adversarial access to resources and for the next world war. Why should i trust them, who’ve never done anything good for the people, to worry about us or the environment?
Additionally, if you believe the answer may come from the private industry, you may realize there’s only two ways industry is trying to tackle the environmental problem:
bring more technology to “fix” problems introduced by technology, for example claiming IoT-powered vertical farms full of electronics or producing more eco-destructive, sterile GMO seeds will be be more ecological than traditional permaculture (which is completely delusional)
forget about earth and go colonize mars, no learning anything from the past but rather hoping for more resources to extract and more places to pollute/destroy (hey maybe entire Earth can be a space dumpster where noone can breath, once all the privileged folks have moved to Mars, if that ever happens)
So i have no faith in private industry either. We are left on our own to fix our problems, as was always the case. Whether a global revolution against capitalism and all forms of domination will take place is ensure. What’s more certain is that those people in power will never question the status quo in meaningful way.
I don’t disagree with a lot of your statements, except I don’t understand why you think the market socialist country that executes it’s billionaires when they step out of line is a industrial capitalist country.
I would also suggest you haven’t provided any solution to the issues you have raised. How do we go up against the world powers you have listed that are working to secure their supply chains to embed the status quo? My argument is you can’t without revolution.
As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.
As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)
Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!
I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?
Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.
I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)
This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.
It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.
All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.
I think you might not be getting the full picture. Agree that PRC is now the world’s biggest polluter, but it’s also the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research. Also always worth keeping in mind that the West still houses the majority of its manufacturing in China. China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
<sarcasm>Yes, please tell me more about how green capitalism is going to save the world.</sarcasm>
You may find it interesting to read or watch something on the topic. I would strongly recommend End:Civ, and to a lesser degree Planet of the Humans which is way less interesting from a political perspective, but has great explanation of why “green” capitalism isn’t green and “renewable” energies aren’t renewable.
TLDR: “clean energy” and technological innovation won’t save us (source: tech person myself, please don’t trust us to make serious decisions for the future of humanity). only less consumption a serious deconstruction of the car/concrete society, high ecological standards (think no paints, no plastics, no concrete in daily life) and a serious fight against planned obsolescence (and intellectual property of any kind that makes it possible in the first place) might have a chance to save humanity, not exactly as we know it (over-abundance and misery) but as a society of reasonable-abundance and justice.
Sure. I’m not here to vilify China and defend western empires. I’m an anarchist, i strongly oppose any State though i don’t take a neutral stance when it comes to military interventions. My heart stands with the Kurds and the Palestinians and all the oppressed peoples on this planet. Fire to all colonial empires, even France (my birthplace) and China!
Firstly, you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism. Investing != Capitalism. If you don’t get that please let me know and I can explain further.
Secondly, as a fellow technologist, and someone whose undergrad program director was a not so closeted anarchist, I understand the argument you’re making and have also read several books that advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies, and the like. I understand your argument and my response is that based on the current trajectory of global society the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution in the United States and Europe concurrently (at least within a 20 year time span). The reality is capital flight is a real practice with the advent of transnational corporations. My logic for arguing for technology is that we’re not likely to see a revolution in any major western power anytime soon because of the economic weight of the global financial system and imperial hegemon of the USA. Until we reach a crisis point there will not be the change you’re advocating for. However, much like how Britain overbuilt railways in the 18th century, or the internet stock mania led to the current tech firms dominance today, the creation of for example, lead free perovskite solar panels, open source grid distribution technology, and other sustainable technologies, will allow us to love more sustainably after the crisis. My interpretation of your argument is that you think we’ll somehow transition to a low resource use economy (realistically how besides revolution?) and then live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism? I don’t see it. I do hope I’m wrong of course, I particularly hate planned obselesence lately (among all the other terrible things).
Not exactly. You specifically mentioned China, which is an industrial capitalist nation.
I don’t promote depopulation or small-scale societies. I understand the Neo-malthusian anarcha-feminist analyses from the 19th century (Émilie Lamotte for example) but since then the material conditions have changed greatly: humanity is now producing more commodities that the entire planet needs, and industry started planned obsolescence in the 1920s (years after Lamotte’s death) to make sure people would keep buying.
So yes i’m advocating for the end of consumerism (the cult of consumption), but not necessarily against consumption itself, as long as it’s done following ethical/environmental/cooperative standards.
I like to hope otherwise, but i agree with you. According to Lucy Parsons (a founder of the IWW),
the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace at any price, except at the price of liberty.That would be nice, except it’s clearly not what’s happening. First, because as a tech person you sure know commercial interests are always higher priority than technical/ethical interests. Second, because even if we do come up with better batteries or lead-free solar panels, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
There is no such thing as clean energy on a big scale. I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible (just like aliens) but there’s nothing even close to that anyone is currently researching. Energy is easy to produce/consume in small quantities, but big cities are by all criteria a human failure: more concrete (very polluting, requires a lot of fossil fuels and sand), bigger/centralized energy/food consumption (far away from production sites).
Well i’m not against “progress” when it is measurable, and actually serving the people. But, as Kirkpatrick Sale points out (not advocating for the man’s other analysis):
Progress is the myth that assures us that full-speed-ahead is never wrong. Ecology is the discipline that teaches us that it is disaster.So if slower progress is the way to ensure that life can go on on this planet, i’m all for it. If we can achieve progress without murdering millions of species and actively poisoning most water streams, i’m all for it.
But currently the situation is such that actual destruction of the environment keeps on growing on a global scale: more concrete, more deforestation, more electricity for smart toasters and cryptocoins for your Alexa-powered fridge, more highly-polluting electronics materials in all aspects of human life, more lithium-powered wireless devices everywhere…
So the situation is exponentially getting worse (as you may notice from taking a look at “natural” disasters of the past decades). The only way technological progress could save us is:
I would love this scenario, but honestly i don’t find it more realistic than a global revolution. In case you are not noticing, more and more people are struggling for food and water and other basic services, while there is an abundance of those on a global scale. Most rivers we know of on the planet are currently undrinkable due to human pollution, so we are actually fighting for survival as a planet.
Whether we’ll have a global revolution to dismantle industrial capitalism? Not sure. I sure hope so, but i’m not confident at all. What i do know with 100% certainty is that the alternative of relying on the good will of industrialized nations will not take us anywhere. Why am i so confident this is not happening? Let me explain. All colonial empires around the globe in the past decades are:
All of the big colonial empires, France, USA, China, Russia, Israel, Turkey, Brazil, India, Japan… They’re all preparing for increased adversarial access to resources and for the next world war. Why should i trust them, who’ve never done anything good for the people, to worry about us or the environment?
Additionally, if you believe the answer may come from the private industry, you may realize there’s only two ways industry is trying to tackle the environmental problem:
So i have no faith in private industry either. We are left on our own to fix our problems, as was always the case. Whether a global revolution against capitalism and all forms of domination will take place is ensure. What’s more certain is that those people in power will never question the status quo in meaningful way.
I don’t disagree with a lot of your statements, except I don’t understand why you think the market socialist country that executes it’s billionaires when they step out of line is a industrial capitalist country. I would also suggest you haven’t provided any solution to the issues you have raised. How do we go up against the world powers you have listed that are working to secure their supply chains to embed the status quo? My argument is you can’t without revolution.