schekn_itrch
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi radu62s,
I totally understand your wish to start building the socialist system right now. This kind of position, “we just need to sit tight and WAIT until the rest of the humanity automagically come to realize the socialist values as theirs own”, it is a bit frustrating.
I will just throw a couple of ideas into the pot here. First of all, it seems that most people are limited in their vision of a future society by what they have already seen, which is very understandable, this is how a brain works. For instance, we usually imagine store shelves full of produce. My idea would be that in a more sustainable socialist society, a more efficient system would function: that of canteens. It saves a lot of waste on so many levels: cooking, energy, washing up, space, etc. When I lived in Zurich, I would often eat in a local university canteen which offered a variety of choices of food, including vegetarian, and I absolutely loved the fact that I didn’t need to waste my time grocery shopping, cooking and washing the dishes.
But this is just one idea. I imagine, there would be a lot of other changes in the way we consume, and our current vision is somewhat distorted by what we see on the daily basis in capitalism.
In general, radu62s, I agree with you that we may need to start building the systems of the future already now. I would join you, and I have a lot of ideas.
Dave, are you capable of starting a single post with a word other than “Actually”?
Your mention of Greta’s condition is simply low. It has absolutely nothing to do with her message, maybe with her methods, but definitely not her message. Just acknowledge that you are simply wrong on this.
In times of capitalist propaganda taking most of the mass media time, being “preoccupied with a narrow subject” and repeating your message may well turn out to be a winning strategy, by the way. You really need to hammer in your point to be heard in this noise. Besides, why are you being so negative about this? What better alternative strategy are you proposing and personally pursuing?
Excellent question, and a very timely one at that. I see it as class struggle on various levels: it is still very much a class struggle, only now we are becoming dispossessed not just of our means of production, but also of the very basic conditions of healthy life we as biological organisms require. In other words, this is, in a sense, an even deeper, existential class struggle, a struggle to survive. From that point of view it does overshadow the extraction of surplus value from labor.
I do not think this is a fringe philosophical exercise. Given how important of an issue is has become for the society, I do believe the party should take notice and incorporate it into our core principles and objectives.
robbo203, yes, you raise a valid point here, this situation does elicit the feelings of despair and grief. In fact, the XR movement know that and are actually prepared to deal with it: they have literature dedicated to the ways of going through these difficult emotions, as well as special people who gather groups and try to support vulnerable people. As a result, people seem to stick to the only thing they see which works. They take what XR is offering as the only possibility of hope. This is better than not facing the truth and then be utterly stunned by what happens. So, to answer your question, I don’t need to address this point, it is already being addressed by XR, and this is not, as Wez put it, “idealism and reformism”, it is practical psychology and spirituality – basics of emotional intelligence, which some comrades here seem to utterly lack.
If you have any other questions, please do let me know.
ALB, let me ask you this: if, as you say, “Hallam is not helping the cause of doing something effective about climate change” – then who is? Who, in your opinion, is doing a better job at making the society aware of the problem?
Robbo203, I am quite sure GAF (Green anti-capitalist Front) are not just against neo-liberalism, but I will report here after I know more, so for now let’s just say – most likely.
I cannot agree on the alarmist language though: I think if you asked a random person on the streets of London before this April, they wouldn’t even be able to tell the real scale of the environmental challenge we are facing. Thanks to the XR, now there are a lot more people who are aware. The fact is that unless you spell it out in quite blunt terms people are really not emotionally connecting to this information. This is because we are biologically not hardwired to notice gradual change or to imagine change outside our immediate sensory perception. As a result, if you say it in terms scientists usually use, like “there is a XX percent chance of climate change with XX degrees of temperature increase”, people just don’t react at all. To me, being a little bit more concerned than warranted about even a slight chance of a really deadly outcome is more than justified. If we just keep being “rational” and “calm” nothing will happen. That is, until it is too late. Again, I already wrote to ALB, if you want to read about the problem, please do tell me, I have a number of books I can recommend.
Wez: 1) you can attack an idea for as long as you wish, it is a pointless business anyway. When you just convince yourself that someone represents a “wrong” idea you automatically block yourself from working with them. This is why I “continually accuse you” and this is why what you do is not simple disagreement but an act of hostility. You could disagree and then try to work WITH people to come to an understanding, or (what you are doing) you can disagree and say “there, you are wrong. Until you understand this, I will just wait and criticize an IDEA (which you all, whoever you are, represent, because it is so convenient for me to just criticize an idea and not enter a dialog). Besides, who told you that I am not challenging them as well? I am, they are discussing their activities on Basecamp (where one needs to be invited, apparently, if you don’t want to pay for it), and I tell them that they need to focus on the real reason of the problem. But we need to put our differences away and try to work TOGETHER. Only when we are willing to do so can we start a productive dialog, and a change can happen.
ALB: First of all, basics of psychology – you should not criticize a person, you should only criticize their actions. Second – are you sure you actually listened to the interview? Roger Hallam looks like the only sane person there. His message, which he repeats several time, is that the current scientific consensus is that if we continue on the same path of “business as usual” for the next 10 years, there is a significant chance of runaway climate change and societal collapse. If this happens, then yes, several billion people will likely die. We are not talking about random rationality here, these are our best scientific predictions. I already listed several books for you and others on this forum which describe in detail how this scenario is very much likely. Before you continue labeling people “raving lunatics” I suggest you actually read them. Then we can talk.
Dave, do you really have to say that Greta is aspergic? What does her medical condition have to do with her message? What is wrong with you? Just like ALB, you would rather use ad hominem arguments. If you see that those people are wrong, it is important to tell THEM that, not us. We already know that. Hence my criticism of the original ALB’s post.
Wez – “This kind of reformism/idealism” – how did you suddenly arrive at reformism there? Where did you take that? We were not talking about reformism. This is the kind of “hostile” aatitude I have been talking about here on this forum a lot – people just lump together everything negative they know into the “anti-socialist image”, and then attack this straw man. This kind of intellectual imprecision and laziness must be avoided by socialist comrades. Let us focus on what is discussed, not what you would like to just criticize because you feel like criticizing.
ALB – great, you are not criticizing people who are mobilized by the XR movement. Then what ARE you doing? I started posting on this thread with a clear message that it would be beneficial to start a dialog and communicate with these people, explain to them our message. All you write is just useless criticism. Why? What are you trying to achieve? Please stop this negativism and rather join our attempts at bringing more members to the party.
“This is the sort of stuff I mean:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/extinction-rebellion/page/7/#post-186274” – I do not see anything mystical about what you posted there. Maybe you mean “spiritual”? Then yes, I would agree. But what is wrong with that? Just because you lump together spiritual attitudes and “Gaia worshiping” does not make it factually correct. I personally see nothing to criticize there, and I am yet to hear a single mention of anything mystical at an XR meeting. Spiritual – yes, and people need it for emotional health; mystical – no.
“There’s plenty more of that in the book. And the Afterword is written by a former Archbishop of Canterbury.” – argumentum ad hominem, well done, comrade! Of course an archbishop cannot possibly say anything NOT mystical or anything that makes sense. Bravo!
“You are missing the point. I wasn’t suggesting that Hallam or XR were advocating capitalism, but merely that the collapse/overthrow of a government opposed to XR’s policies would not amount to ending to capitalism..” – no, you are missing the point. While you are suggesting that what these people are fighting for is impossible, you could be working with these people to explain that a bigger share of their efforts could be directed towards bringing in and educating larger groups of people on the real causes of climate change. Instead of impotent criticism from the safe position of “well, we are just WAITING until the vast majority somehow magically on their own bring themselves to finally understand our socialist truths” you could be proposing what we already now can actually do to make that happen. This is the point. Instead of alienating them and criticizing their methods we should be pointing out their mistakes and indicating how our position actually leads to real solutions.
For example, these people here ( https://greenanticapitalist.org/ ) are already doing their part. Are we just going to keep sitting in our ivory tower and keep producing this critical “bla-bla-blah”, or can we start a productive dialog with people who actually hope to see socialism take place?
Good points, Alan! By the way, maybe I have missed it, but did anyone here have any experience with these guys?
HomeThey seem to be like XR, only strongly anti-capitalist. I am trying to find anything in their stance that would be in fundamental contradiction to the principles of the SPGB, and cannot.
First, to Alan: The main point of the article you mentioned was not pessimism, it was the fact that at some point XR will have to face the reality that “bringing humanity down to ‘sustainable’ levels of energy and material throughput in just a few decades, and maintaining it there, is most likely incompatible with democracy, freedom and openness.” The same could be said about socialists, btw.
ALB: your phrase “Only lacking is a criticism of XR’s mystical spiritual beliefs.” is misleading and just plain wrong. First of all, is suggests that the article was overall critical, which it was not. It gave a good overview and presented several weak points, but at the same time agreed with a lot of things XR people hold. Secondly, where is the “mystical” part you mention? You just made it up.
What you call alarmism, is in fact a strategy any sane scientist would take: if there is even a small probability of a very destructive event, measures should be taken. There is nothing alarmist about predicting social disturbance within the next decade, given the ‘human overshoot’ problem described in the article Alan quoted. Really, ALB, your criticism of “They are not even really convinced that their demand of net zero carbon emissions by 2025 is possible.” is laughable at best and possibly dangerous. What is the point of what you wrote? What are you trying to say? The author in the book is trying to help people envisage a reality where we really do reduce CO2 emissions radically, this can be helpful. And what are you doing? Just sitting there and criticizing other people who are teaching, reaching out, supporting each other – is not very helpful. If you wanted to present the book you read, you failed miserably. The book is composed of many chapters written by completely different people who represent various points of view, and you did not even deign to point that out.
You say, “Yes (that’s what happened to the state-capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe), but then what? There’d still be capitalism” – and just where did you read or hear this? Authors in the book are suggesting “system change”, and they do not write that it has to be capitalism. You are just writing your own fantasies, nothing more.
Instead of giving your “non-science-based” predictions that help no one, why don’t you go out to the streets and start bringing all those people who are now flocking to the XR meetings, before they “disappear after a few years”? It is easy to criticize, much more difficult to propose something constructive!
Let me join John Oswald and ask a very similar question, possibly related:
What do members think of the possibility that people will arrive at our conclusions independently of us – without necessarily knowing we exist – on mass scale?
There is no question that in various parts of the globe the dispossessed will understand their position, and will try to form some kind of resistance, but what are the odds that within the current system of capitalist brainwashing/propaganda working class will arrive at socialist conclusions in sufficient numbers to actually bring about the socialist revolution?
There was very recently an “activity” of devising a strategy for the next year of the movement activities (including the upcoming October) at an XR meeting. There were some interesting ideas like land ownership criticism, wage slavery, growth and profit-based economy, some of which I believe got into the final draft. These local proposed strategy directions are then supposedly discussed at a higher level when representatives from the local groups meet in London. I am yet to witness people vote for these representatives, though, or to see how they are accountable.
Can we create an SPGB XR group? Excellent question. As far as I understand, there is nothing that would stop us from doing it, at least in principle. The official position of XR is as follows:
“All are welcome who want to adhere to our principles and values
-
<li class=”type”>
-
we set our mission on what is necessary
Mobilising 3.5% of the population to achieve system change – using ideas such as “Momentum-driven organising” to achieve this.
-
we need a regenerative culture
Creating a culture which is healthy, resilient and adaptable.
-
we openly challenge ourselves and our toxic system
Leaving our comfort zones to take action for change.
-
we value reflecting and learning
Following a cycle of action, reflection, learning, and planning for more action. Learning from other movements and contexts as well as our own experiences.
-
we welcome everyone and every part of everyone
Working actively to create safer and more accessible spaces.
-
we actively mitigate for power
Breaking down hierarchies of power for more equitable participation.
-
we avoid blaming and shaming
We live in a toxic system, but no one individual is to blame.
-
we are a non-violent network
Using non-violent strategy and tactics as the most effective way to bring about change.
-
we are based on autonomy and decentralisation
We collectively create the structures we need to challenge power. Anyone who follows these core principles and values can take action in the name of Extinction Rebellion.”
we have a shared vision of changeCreating a world that is fit for generations to come.
Most of these are extremely vague. Their structure is not really decentralized, it is just opaque. For example, in the document “How-to-start-a-local-Extinction-Rebellion-group” (https://rebellion.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/How-to-start-a-local-Extinction-Rebellion-group.pdf) they write “For example, if the Communities team want to start outreaching to the Muslim community, they can decide it in their group without asking permission from the rest of the local group (more on decision making later).” – but that “later” never came, somehow, and then they write “A Coordination Group is a group of the coordinators from the different WGs (Working Groups) which meet to decide key local issues and how the working groups will be strategically focussed.” So there is central structure after all, they are just carefully hiding it.
I suspect most people here already know about this invaluable resource, but just in case:
https://sci-hub.tw/ – type an article’s title in the search field, and enjoy reading scientific literature. Publishing houses are really at the top of the list of the most heinous capitalist practices, limiting access to the knowledge from research mostly funded through public money. Knowledge should be free, it belongs to all people equally.
About XR and airports: there was going to be something at Heathrow, and they published on the official website of XR that they are not with those people, meaning that they neither support nor oppose it. In any case, they withdrew their legal and financial support to that instance of rebellion. We’ll see what they do next, they have just 3 hours ago released an announcement that October 7th is the start of a 2-week blockade of Westminster and other actions at unprecedented scale. On the verge of Brexit, this is promising to be a heck of an October.
DJP, I am not a specialist either, this is why I do not write articles about it. I do see logical inconsistencies, however, and can comment when something is factually incorrect. Your question about human reproductive patterns: normally we wouldn’t need to prove a pattern that is the same for all life forms on Earth. It is you who should prove why one particular species should be different from all the rest. But if you want historical examples, please read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond – it is full of examples. One example is when a stable population on an island gets new crops / domesticated animals from outside, and their numbers shoot up, suggesting that their previous population level was limited by availability of food. Please understand that I am not trying to say that with education we still behave like fruit flies. However, capitalist reality is keeping large populations in poverty and so uneducated, and this in turn results in those populations’ proliferation.
-
