/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

(287.46 KB 732x1024 8df3c00570.jpg)
Rafiq/Ecology Discussion moo 07/20/2020 (Mon) 22:46:11 No. 2532
So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy! This thread could serve to discuss this work if anyone ever dedicates the time to read it, or we could debate the place of ecology in modern day Marxism. To provoke discussion: does nature have any value outside how it immediately serves human interests?
man I wish was class conscious enough back then to actually be going on revleft when it was. it seems like forums are a dinosaur of the early 21st century at this point, but they were really the best social media format we've had so far. it's also hilarious watching all these common-sensical people react to Rafiq's comments, I can't imagine what it's like to be in the mind of someone that hears about technological advancement and resorts to ecological essentialism like these people. I know it sounds like I'm trying to be superior but I really sincerely don't get these people at all. it's like they skimmed the posts and cherrypicked a few trigger words like "ewwwww concrete" and revolved their whole post around it.
>>2533 Unironically born in the wrong generation. I do agree for actual discussion they are the best forms of discussion, as much as the regular channer loves to shit on tripfags, for a coherent conversation it is necessary. It is very funny, the bit where he talks about his complete disgust for nature documentary footage with swelling classic music is fantastic. I actual brought this up the other day, with socdem/radlib people, and without even mentioning concrete they brought up themselves the idea of a 'world paved with concrete' as some sort of hell. I can understand peoples' generally repulsion to anti-ecology, since it is currently such prevalent ideology, but these people are meant to be marxists, and they can't even read Rafiq's post to understand it properly.
(34.34 KB 341x450 engels stirner.jpg)
Thank you for this. Reading right now. You opened another door in my head to let the ghosts out.
If you want to know what Marx actually wrote about pollution, animal abuse etc. read Karl Marx's Ecosocialism by Kohei Sato.
>>2629 Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a read.
>>2629 Why should we read it? Why do you think Sato "gets" Marx? What are Sato's main theses in the work? In other words, make a case for why we should read the work.
>>2532 Kinda long. I'll try to read it soon.
For those who aren't aware I've attached the initial popular pdf regarding a conversation on pet ownership. It is such a good read that it caused me to compile this 160 page prequel so I would recommend it.
>>2656 As far as I can tell, Sato didn't start with an ebin thesis about Marx truly believed, but by searching for any statement by Marx touching the topic. The book is a presentation of that. Everything is sourced, so if you disagree with how he presents something you can check for yourself. Sato got help from the MEGA editors and his search covers and goes beyond what you can find in the MECW. He even knows what topic-relevant books Marx had on the shelf.
>>2532 He may have a point, but as an artist I find it abhorrent.
>>2665 Why?
>>2666 It's going from an extreme of eco fascism to the extreme of techno fascism. Refusing nature intrinsic value, it is also refused to wildlife that is dependant on said nature. Some animals could be said to be approaching human levels of intelligence, such as high apes and crustaceans, possibly extending to extraterrestials. They get the axe too? Then, denying value to other intelligent life we can deny value to other human beings themselves. What, then, value is left there? Self-replication and sustainment of one's own species. What will such a society resemble, a Imperium of Man from 40k? At this point is it still communist, or technofascist? It may be what is necessary, but to what end? With space exploration and colonisation drifting more and more away from possibility with just what we already know about space and laws of physics. May be it's just my archaic sensibilities, being classically trained and all. I don't cease to be communist because Rafiq's words frighten me, I'll follow whatever comes disregardless. I just don't see the value in living in such a world, for me.
>>2667 >They get the axe too? Nobody gets the axe. I don't understand where people get this notion that Rafiq wants to "destroy nature" and kill all life that isn't human. Nowhere does he say it. All he is saying is that Marxists understand that humans, by creating value by working on nature, destroy it. Humans cannot experience nature without "destroying" it, without changing it, subjugating it to ourselves so it doesn't kill us. We "destroy" wind by hiding in houses, we "destroy" rivers by damming them up, but we also create lakes, nature reserves, rivers and seas. The point is that we, as humans, are against nature. Nature is alien and foreign to us, because nature kills us: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, venomous plants, snakes and insects. The only nature we can coexist with, is that which we have dominated and bent to our will in national parks and botanical gardens. Does this outlook justify putting concrete over the planet? Of course not. This outlook saddles us with the commitment to find a way to allow space for nature to grow alongside us. It means protecting plants and animals, not allowing them to go extinct due to our industrialisation and expansion. Capitalist logic tells us that we have to choose between industrialisation and "nature". That is a false dichotomy. It only applies in capitalism because protecting natural resources isn't profitable, while exploiting them is. It is possible to industrialise sustainably, it's just that with our current ideological conditions it doesn't make sense.
>>2667 What intrinsic value does nature actually have, outside of what it offers to humans? I agree as a notion we should keep apes around, regardless of how little future society develops in terms of eco-fetishism we should keep a set of oragnutans or something to see if we can 'create' consciousness, it would be invaluable really. The point is we don't deny any value to any human, we are all equal as humans regardless of individual differences. Calling this communist or technofascist isn't really the point, it will be what society wants it to be at the time. Maybe 40k dudes will seem really cool in the future and everyone will want to be one? Who could have predicted hundreds of years ago that we would have bodybuilders that would sacrifice their lives to get insanely big, just from some strange insecurity? It does sound weird to us, since we live in a liberal world that loves ecology and saving the polar bears, even the cold Rafiq mentions how he finds solace walking around parks and stuff, because of what nature can offer us as human beings. But does that mean it has intrinsic value if those offerings can be replaced and optimized?
>>2667 >Refusing nature intrinsic value, it is also refused to wildlife that is dependant on said nature. Some animals could be said to be approaching human levels of intelligence, such as high apes and crustaceans, possibly extending to extraterrestials. They get the axe too? Then, denying value to other intelligent life we can deny value to other human beings themselves. What, then, value is left there? nobody's saying we should "deny value" to nature. all Rafiq is saying is that "nature" is not really a thing outside of us that exists independent of us with some kind of "eternal harmony" that humans destroyed. nature was never harmonious to begin with otherwise we wouldn't exist. the views of nature as a perfectly organized system independent of human intervention IS superstition. it doesn't reflect the reality.
>>2668 >>2669 >>2670 Thanks, lots to think about. It is true, the romanticized popular image of nature isn't true nature per se. Could it be said that the human intervention, as human himself has come from nature, is part of nature? The steel and glass high rises, the oil refineries, are themselves part of nature? Like the advent of oxygen, the advent of man wipes out most other life and transforms nature, is just part of nature? Well, it looks like sophistry anyway.
>>2682 it’s just that people invest so much ideology in scolding against intervention with the natural world and deeming it taboo because you’re interfering with some dualistic eternal harmonious balance that really isn’t there. reminder that nature has had mass extinctions independent of our existence in the past, and much harsher variations in the global climate than we’ve seen in all of human history. to say that it’s not worth investing in geoengineering and terraforming and things like that because it invades some abstract “harmony”, is actually a really dangerous superstition to say if you take a closer look at prehistory, and realize that it leaves us open to mass extinction regardless of whether humans are causing it or not.
>>2683 >The Earth has had mass extinctions before <So we should create one right now in the 21st Century Only on an imageboard would people say this isn’t a retarded position to hold
>>2684 I think anon is saying basically the opposite of that.
>>2684 are you just pretending to be retarded?
Top work moo. The more Rafiq stuff that is produced the better. I have been a Rafiq reader for a number of years, there is something in this guy which is unique, something the Left needs to know. I might even go as far as to say that Rafiq is the bridge that the Left needs to cross to get it's house in order and be able to have a powerful and consistent message which can reverberate with ordinary people. The current Left is like a grab-bag of uncritically held assumptions, inconsistent notions and diverse struggles. It really is weak right now, despite there being a fairly decrepit and zombie-like capitalism.
>>2626 I was basically radicalised by online forums like revleft, I think they are a great way to get into meaty discussions, far better than a comment section on the end of a blog post, or a chan board like this one. I mean, threads like this are lost as soon as they are started, nothing is set out as a permanent legacy, I don't really understand why you would want to post here. On the other hand, this YouTube/tiktok/Twitter way of discussing is what we have to contend with, but it is most often just shit slinging, unworthy of proper discussion, it fosters retreat into dogmatism and taking sides. Taking sides is all very well, but for those we wish to convince, it's hopeless. As for the concrete world, it is literally a joke how people can reduce a series of complex ideas to a single image. People, particularly Leftists, are pathetic creatures who can't seem to criticise their own emotions properly. Like they just state a feeling as the beginning and end of the discussion, how repulsive, how worthy of derision they really are, and how correct Rafiq is to lay into this casual 'hipster' socialism.
>>2667 I think that if you consider the future communist society to be one in which you would like to live, with our current sensibilities, you are making a mistake. The deep communist future, where human beings are finally freed from our bodies, inherited from nature, and the universe is continually being sculpted and produced in man's image, the abolition of biological life as such, the strip-mining of planet earth to produce the galaxy-spanning technological structure which will house mankind, the end of gender, birth, motherhood, family, sex, animals, religion etc. this should fill us with pride and empowerment. This future, which is the logical outflow of the communist society's reproduction, would be hideous to us as we are presently, fixed as we are in our human bodies and so on. Honestly, I don't care that this future disgusts you, you need to re-think your sentimentalities, because the end of capitalism means the end of any sentimentality toward that which was considered holy, money, family, sex, pleasure and nature.
>>2682 No this is simply false. In the same way that man can never 'go back' to nature, because it would mean adandoning consciousness itself, the creations of mankind exist in spite of nature, they are not an outflow of it. Our sentiments should be with the steel and glass of the high-rises, manifestations of man's divinity, and even with the excess plastic and waste, the excrement produced in abundance. The only thing we communists say is that currently, man's creations serve to alienate and Eisenhower him, rather than being the proud products and symbols of man's mastery over nature. This is a political question. We do not oppose capitalism only to put forward a harmonious balance with nature, we say fuck nature, but let us be fully self-conscious and in control of this mastery, rather than dominated by it, as we are under capitalism.
>>2758 I meant disempower, not Eisenhower.
>>2758 >Our sentiments should be with the steel and glass of the high-rises I agree with you, but that's just a bougie sentiment. "muh glass towers". They're inefficient for cooling and heating, the glass needs to be changed every 15-25 years, the glass has to be cleaned often. I guess you're gonna volounteer to scrub the "altars to man's divinity" every day in your soulless communist utopia? Stone, brick, cement, that's what we need to build out of. We're only getting memed into steel and glass because that's cheaper and faster to build (but not maintain). After the construction company builds it and makes a profit, it is then up to the building owner to maintain it, often through the same company that built it. Stone, cement and brick, hell, nearly anyone can slap some cement on bricks if need be. People can recycle bricks, recycle stone, etc. but not steel and glass without industrial machinery and lots of energy. Fuck steel and glass buildings. And fuck everyone who likes them.
>>2763 Yes ok, cement and bricks then, it makes no difference to the point I was making. As for scrubbing, that's what nanobots are for.
>>2754 Thanks Jingo7. It is very true, I've been reading some older modern Marxist books (60s/70s) and they all are so critical of capitalism, for hundreds of years we've accused capitalism of being on the verge of total collapse, but alas it seems to get no closer in the West. It is more important than ever for revolutionaries to hold each other accountable and engage in ruthless criticism. Regarding forums, I find Bunkerchan fun, but /leftypol/ is pretty much garbage and feels like it's just been getting worse. /edu/ however is so slow it acts more like a forum, threads aren't looking to die any time soon. Do you have any recommendations for leftist places online? >>2757 Well put, let me reinforce what you say with a quote: >As soon as there will exist for everyone a margin of real freedom beyond production of life, Marxism will have lived out its span; a philosophy of freedom will take its place. But we have no means, no intellectual instrument, no concrete experience which allows us to concieve of this freedom or of this philosophy. - Jean-Paul Satre, Search for a Method >>2763 All hail the brutalist communist utopia.
(235.07 KB 1360x765 iu copy.jpeg)
Also similar to the 'concrete' meme I have people tell me it's a very "capitalist" mindset to dominate nature in a smug manner. Anyways I was thinking about this the other day. So let us assume that animals can suffer in a way akin to human suffering. This would mean after we all become vegan, as every human sees the light after full communism is achieved and no human goes hungry, we would look to reduce the suffering of animals. How would we do this? Would ever cow get an acre of glorious grass, in thousand story buildings stacked up for their pleasure, with an infinite lab-grown-cow-milk supply? Would we stop cats from raping each other? Or even more radically, would we stop cat sex altogether since by nature it is painful for the female? Most green-people would say that this is silly and that we should 'leave nature be', but this leads to the fact that we should restore cows back to unsheltered open fields where they lay completely vulnerable to attack from predators, to be fully aware that a painful rape occurs, yet do absolutely nothing about it. You can see how another avenue opens here towards eco-fascism...
>>2833 >the fact that we should restore cows back to unsheltered open fields What do you mean "back"? Cows don't exist in the wild, they're a product of human genetic engineering.
>>2834 Not genetic engineering, artifical selection, but yeah.
>>2834 Exactly it is an impossibility, The logic is inconsistent.
>>2833 Exactly, this is the animal rights idea taken to its logical conclusions. It just doesn't make sense, if we project human feeling on to animals then every animal copulation is a rape, every predatory killing is a murder and so on. Do the animal fanciers not have a brain cell between them?


no cookies?