Anyone else feeling more Green than Red? I'm absolutely no tree-hugger or primitivist, but it seems like a revolution focused on solely the material interests of the working class is a recipe for the continuation of consumerism, as well as not developing the MoP.
Pic unrelated, though you can discuss Shay's Rebellion and similar affairs if you really feel like it I guess.
What would you like the revolution to "focus on", OP?
The "commonwealth"; productive capability, anti-sectarianism, the environment, shit like that.
I mention Green in particular because it feels like the environmental issue is one really, really well suited for a collectivist society to engage in. Picture if the US or the UK in WW2 kept the low domestic consumption and high industrial production, but instead of producing tanks to blow Nazis up built solar panels, environmentally sustainable factories, space mining, and shit like that. I think it would be pretty realistic to actually be able to get things done given a planned economy; the problem would be getting people to keep consumption in check and production high, which you'd need an appropriately strong motivatory factor, such as the environment, to do. Simply saying "you're free now" wouldn't allow this to happen.
Indeed. And it's impossible in a market economy. So if you want to protect the environment, you know what to do.
It will happen
why the hell you always use the conservitard republicunt elephant if you're not like them at all? you're so fucking different. I have seen you before.
Then why did you post it?
It is a false distinction.
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, p.1
The implication here, is that alienation from labor, is itself an expression of alienation from nature.
Maybe he just really likes elephants
He's "commonwealth" user
We aren't supposed to protect and preserve a concept like "nature" and return to pre-industrial revolution conditions like alarmist anprims, what we are supposed to do is use resources in a sustainable way and in increasingly innovative ways.
Right now we have all the resources to, for example, implement sustainable wind farms in the ocean and we could fund public transit (which is way more efficient than cars), but it would be against corporate interests to do it.
Spooky as fuck. This implies that nature is distinct from humanity.
I was more green then red, but there is no way we will have the green revolution with out the red revolution first. Thats why it needs to be NOW
He's probably an old republican, something like the radicals of the 18th or 19th century
I was green before I was red. I love nature, I just don't think we can save the natural world until capitalism is overthrown first. The profit motive is too destructive
Wouldn't it be easier for a green revolution after a red one? Just seems easier, although it would be a sight to see if it was green first.
Who /melon/ here?
I've been asking for a watermelon flag for ages.
The working class is extremely greedy and short sighted, which is why Marxism itself keeps being a failure riddled with corruption, purges, and infighting. It is self-admittedly a materialistic ideology, no different from capitalism. Greens are a superior people because they care about nature and the world, rather than just materialism in Hegel dress enough to want to murder large numbers of the population for it, which is why proles currently would choose capitalism over communism. They won't die under the current system, they would have a high chance if they rebelled and it isn't anywhere near bad enough nor will it ever be again thanks to technology to do such. They will focus on social issues, first world problems, because capitalism had made their lives too decadent. To the point that you do not even need to work in capitalism to not starve to death. Capitalism might be called the most literally successful ideology of all time, but at a price. It eats away at the environment and peoples souls.
As in it beleaves that history is determend by material conditions.
Jason Unruhe is that you?
Climate change is the least of our problems.
The fuck even "consumerism" under communism supposed to mean? What would be its structural underpinnings? Commercials? There are none. Huge malls? They are re-purposed. Production for exchange? Eliminated.
Marxism isn't materialistic, it's materialist. Similarly, Nietzsche wasn't nihilistic, but a nihilist. Semantically speaking, you are mixing up denotations and connotation; philosophically speaking, you are mixing up doxa and knowledge; and frankly speaking, you are a newfag that needs to lurk more before spouting his ignorance.
People in general are just like that under capitalism, and for systemic reasons. You are motivated to seek self-interest and crush your competition. This isn't a transhistorical truth, but a historic condition and there are several proofs of this.
Just like any scientific community, I guess. The truth is at stake here, billy.
You are implying here that the world isn't fully material which begs the question: what else do you believe in? Souls? Thetans? Ancient spirits? Come on! Out with it! Show your deck!
Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's a socio-economic system. It wasn't invented, it developed from a fragmented previous world (feudalism), just like communism will.
You are the biggest newfag in weeks. lurk. moar.
But there is consumerism under early stage socialism like the USSR
Conservative, conservation. It kind of makes sense if you think about it.
In what meaningful sense was there consumerism under the planned economy period of the USSR? Commodities weren't produced for a market. There were no advertisements, no artificial economic needs were created. The products itself had a utilitarian design, were highly modifiable and long-lasting, planned obsolescence wasn't a thing.
What do you mean by "consumerism?" Because it is clearly not what is commonly understood by it.
Yup, and fire didn't burn, and water wasn't wet.
not really liberal, liberty. It kind of makes sense if you think about it.
words can be spooks, fixed ideas too homie. Careful.
Words are spooks. They are an abstraction on reality. A basketball or a ball still poorly describes what a basketball is. It only describes what Ive attributed to the object.
A market requires private entities for trade to take place and objects to trade held in private ownership. Since the state owned pretty much everything there couldn't have been trade in any meaningful sense of the word.
Do you allocate objects between your right and left hands or do you trade an object between them?
Read the chapter 14 of .pdf related on property relations.
That's pretty much the definition of "commodities". Hence my remark.
Precisely no, it didn't.
More of a Cicero, Hobbes, or Jefferson than a Lincoln, really.
I guess "decadence" might have been a better word? Basically indulging in wasteful extravagance and living beyond one's means rather than equal or less. I fail to see how a communism with rhetoric built around "the porkies are screwing you over, rise up to advance your material conditions" could demolish that.
What are you talking about, exactly? The farm coops? The sole allocator of its products was the state.
Communism isn't rhetoric, tho. Communism is a movement that abolishes the present state of things, just how like capitalism was to feudalism.
This is a fact, whether you like it or not. Rise up to abolish the current state of things, more like. We aren't socdems, wanting workers to live in luxurious decadence while keeping the main logic behind production the same (not that this weren't a contradiction in itself).
But I think we aren't even looking for the term "decadence" – something that is pretty much secondary, cultural. We are looking for a term that pinpoints the causation: wastefulness – an economic term. We can safely say that communism will be a much less wasteful economic system since it doesn't rely a non-existent "invisible hand" of the market, but guides and plans production consciously.
The one you just gave me:
>it makes no say to say n-no?
*It makes no sense to say
This makes no say to say. Do you undersay?
A good thing I didn't say that then.
People weren't wage laborers, they didn't sell their labor power on a market, because there was no market to sell it to. You only could work for the state, not separate and competing capitalists. Labour-power was not a commodity to be sold and bought, full employment was in effect. You need to understand that "wage labor" isn't just "getting currency in exchange for work." Another important aspect would be exploitation, which didn't happen in the Marxist sense either. You were taxed and workers couldn't democratically decide how that tax would be allocated, true, but even in anarcho la-la-land you need to take away a good portion of the products to provide for the non-productive population (maternity leave, children, students, elderly, the sick, etc.).
This in itself not sufficient for a market: product allocation based on currency, since what the currency expresses matters.
I'm pretty sure this was true for the NEP period and close to the end of the planned economy, with the reintroduction of the private sphere and markets, but not in between. In any case, the farms weren't competing entities either.
Yes they were.
Yes they did.
Yes there was.
Both irrelevant and untrue.
What do you think kolkhozes were?
Yes it was.
Again: both irrelevant and untrue.
Why this "just"? Wage labour isn't getting currency in exchange for work at all. It is getting currency in exchange for labour power.
Yes it did (the capital's accumulation rate was pretty amazing actually).
No it doesn't. A currency is a currency: a commodity used as a general equivalent on a market. Period. It can "express" only one thing by the way: the abstract labour time socially necessary to its production.
Then you are pretty wrong. There was never a planned economy in the USSR.
Yes they were.
wew wew wew wew
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
At least explain to him why some of his points are irrelevant.