ECO-STALINISM

ECO-STALINISM
Tenets of Stalinism:

Literally every single one of these points is going to be needed to deal with global warming this century. We'll need huge infrastructure spending to put us on clean energy, sustainable transport, insulated homes, and so on. Not to mention massive levees and water management projects to prevent important cities from getting swamped. We'll need a massive state-managed relocation program to get people out of danger areas and put up sea barriers, as well as to deal with millions of refugees. All of the oil company CEOs, all the conservative pundits, the anti-nuclear hippies, and so on will have to disappear. Food and water rationing will be required to prevent mass starvation, and new farmlands will have to be perpetually seized as the arable land region changes. We'll have to invade countries that refuse to move to sustainable energy and green living.

When I look at the reality of climate change… the droughts and floods, the famine and war it will cause… The only logical solution I can see is a brutal, authoritarian ecological dictatorship. I am for Eco-Stalinism.

Why stop there? A forced reduction of living standards would also fit in nicely, since unfettered consumption is the main driver of industrial activity, and therefore pollution.

Or better yet, suppose that your eco-stalinism proves too promethian for the realities of climate change. Would eco-stalinism be concerned with managing a gradual deindustrialization / tech regression?

The potency of the alt right lies in their ability to speak about ideas usually too horrible to contemplate with joy and enthusiasm. The Outside leaks into the reality bubble, and ravenous worship commences. If the alt right targets the sacred cow of social progress, then we ought to slay the holy idol of technological progress. If FEMA camps are funny absurdities, then why not try to make them real?

Reducing wasteful consumption will not require a reduction in living standards. Actually, Eco-Stalinism will raise living standards with free healthcare, free education, and free housing, and free public transportation among other things.
However, recycling will be mandatory, suburban sprawl will be demolished and concentrated into condos, air conditioning will have to be replaced by geothermal cooling in many cases, and a number of other similar sacrifices will be necessary. It sucks, but that's what we get for shitting where we eat.

To the contrary, we will need the cutting edge in renewable energy technology, AI-driven recycling plants, hydroponic farming, etc. Eco-Stalinism will break through the barrier of diminished resources and ecological catastrophe with a new, communist system of energy and industry.

I am intrigued.

I feel old remembering the first time this thread ran its course.
Anyways, I've been considering it and decided that it could work, but under the condition that it does not masquerade as socialism (I don't want to get into another one of those debates). Just be upfront about it being a stratocracy with an army with a degree of self-management at the lower levels. We need to make the cybernetic calculator, as all it does is take inputs in terms of data and spits back outputs telling it like it is. It at least provides a guarantee both of efficiency and of a lack of superfluous bureaucracy in many areas. All which really remains is a system for determining production regulations (this can be democratic) and the rule of an organic-centralist party designed to be dedicated from inception to the scientific management of society from the start (eco-Bordigism?).
The calculator becomes a twisted parody of what it was meant to be if what it suggests in the outputs is made forced work by military strength, but if it means the survival of humanity and there is a definite mechanism for dissolving this strength by mass action when the time comes, I'm for it. The question is, what are some realistic approaches to actively dissolving state power once the situation stabilizes? I suggest a referendum every 10 years using a system always controlled by absolutely-free local councils dedicated specifically to this referendum system, and no manipulation of the minds of the populace outside of the most correct facts is allowed (inb4 "pure ideology"). I don't particularly like it, but is there a better alternative? The calculator will already eliminate almost all need for bureaucracy of any kind or markets, but there will always have to be some violent state apparatus to make eco-Stalinism possible.
In any situation other than this, I'd be vehemently opposed to the very notion of state power being an option, and need confirmation at the least that it won't turn into "a boot stomping on a human face forever" with the help of high tech.

Read Lenin.

I have, didn't like it at all.

I should also mention that eco-Stalinism and statism in general should be seen as a failsafe option. If there's potential for a freer system, use it.

You had me at "killing, imprisoning, or re-educating the reactionaries and the ruling class"

I totally agree to this. I think that if Eco-Stalinism works well enough (eradicating the reaction and the international bourgeoisie quickly), it would "wither away" to a more open and democratic M-L socialism.

I will reduce your plan to one problem:
I will reduce your plan to one solution:

I've been considering a sort of Green Neo-Bolshevism where an expansionist state capitalism with major investment and job creation in technological development and innovation in green industries to eliminate unemployment is implemented. Also draw some inspiration from the Kibbo Kift and push for national rejuvenation, agrarianism and rationing with fitness and outdoors activity.

Social democracy at the barrel of a Mosin made from fully recycled and organic oakwood.

This is the laziest idea ever. Enjoy being denounced and getting nuked out of existence by every capitalist state on Earth.

Wrong. Most people on Earth are not nearly as wasteful as Westerners. Per-capita pollution of China is one third of America's. Africa barely causes global warming at all.


Job creation is inherently reactionary. We must also destroy as many socially-unnecessary jobs as possible, to reduce wasted energy. However, there will be a lot of socially necessary work to do on the ecological revolution.

A) That's not what I meant
B) That simply will not happen. The capitalistic state has its own bureaucratic inertia. The bureaucracy went to great lengths in the USSR to bring down every proposal for cybernetic planning of the economy because it would have stripped the bureaucracy of much of its functions. In fact, they generally preferred Gorbachiovite market reforms because it meant that they would continue to play a significant role and no power would be given to the workers. Any free system must have its free elements built in from the beginning.
When Marx and Engels spoke of "withering away", they meant nothing at all along the lines of ML states. Remember, their only break with Bakunin on the Paris Commune was that they believed that the central apparatus should have been more aggressive and decisive in military affairs as opposed to pouring resources into setting up a full electoral system. Lenin ordered Trotsky to crush its analog at Kronstadt.
Furthermore, even if they did say it, that doesn't make it a given. It's our job to see what we can take from their methodology, but to never
read Dauve tbh or Bordiga

*but to never take what they said as a dogmatic truth. Then we might as well be shitty utopians, worse than normal utopians who at least value liberty. I'd even put christsocs and possibly orthodox socdems above that tbqh.

...

See pic. Don't you have some Israeli settlements to defend?

...

nah, that was just retardation

...