Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

I have a different standpoint because I don’t have a lot of experience dealing with authoritarians and collectivists in the way you do. Anyway, here are some notes up to the section “Capitalism & Communism Are Cut From the Same Globalized Exploitative Industrial Cloth”. (I'll try to do the rest when I get a chance) As usual they’re just for your consideration, it’s your piece to do with as you wish!

the history of collectivised industry and its devastating effects on the environment.

Needs references probably

Industrial production depends on non-stop growth

This is a key claim against reds, so it needs a reference or an explanation for those who are not already in the know

Workers won't vote to scale down their industry or its environmental impact as their livelihoods depend on their industry's growth.

This is not obvious to me, because I can see workers changing how they do things when they have freedom over their workspaces. I personally do think that industry would be scaled down in some or many cases, but that the systemic change necessary to escape the world-eating mode of existence called civilisation would not be achieved.

Indigenous people and anyone living off the land will effectively be seen by workerist-society as an undesirable out-group.

Developing on this point and how class-reductionist perspectives tend to maintain other hierarchies could be useful

the people parroting "no ethical consumption under capitalism" at you don't actually have any intention of curbing their destructive consumption, even under communism. If anything, they hope to increase their consumption by acquiring more spending power. With communism, they'll be able to consume as much as a middle-management boss does under capitalism because all workers will receive an equal share.

I think the is a great point. Maybe it could use teasing out. Pointing out how the worker’s dreams for a better life is very often framed in terms of being able to have things that are kept from them neglects how a world where everybody has these things likely guarantees the consumption of the ‘natural’ world.


I think harm reduction is meaningful but almost only as part of a broader more structural attack. That some harm reduction does make a difference, but it’s a bit like how anticiv people will say that challenging capitalism alone is not enough, you have to challenge civilisation. I think? Challenging capitalism does probably make a difference, but unless you are also attacking civilisation, you'll perpetuate the underlying problem and civilisation will find ways to coopt your mode of living.


container ships that transport imported food and other products are able to bypass any environmental regulations since they operate in international waters

is this true? So far as I understand, the nation’s flag that a ship flies in international waters is the set of laws it is bound to.

Primitive peoples

I feel like we shouldn’t call people primitive.

When someone chooses to not e.g. consume cow products, that directly creates less demand for cow products. So over that person's lifetime, less forest will be bulldozed to graze the cows that they didn't eat.

We’ve chatted about this before. I don’t think this is true. I think if I were a meat eater and I died today no supermarket anywhere would change how many steaks they order. This kind of action only works collectively, I think.

Workerists will tell you with a straight face that capitalism is to blame for the cruise industry's rampant polluting, and "after the revolution", the cruise industry would do no harm because it would be worker-managed.

It might be worthwhile to lead with some examples like this right at the beginning of the piece.

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Is this true (container ships)

Yup.

Container ships run on the dregs of crude oil.

When all the higher quality fuels like petrol, diesel and kerosene have been extracted, you’re left with a black, tarry mess called bunker fuel. This is what container ships burn.

As you may expect, bunker fuel is incredibly polluting.

Back in 2009, confidential data was released showing one container ship produces as much pollution as 50 million cars.

https://www.exponentialinvestor.com/energy/a-single-container-ship-produces-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-uk/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

It's hard to find specific reference saying they're able to do this because they operate in international waters tho so I'll change it a bit.

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I feel like we shouldn’t call people primitive.

Changed to "pre-civilized" to be safe, but I don't really see "primitive" as having a negative connotation in this context since anarchists (primitivists) use it positively.

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Primitivists may intend to use it positively but enough of them fetishize the 'primitive' enough that it completely backfires, I think.

2