captaindread1

captaindread1 OP wrote

It is not a "degrowth" position.

The confrontation of the two ideas (anti-develpment and degrowth) would be better understood if they were presented as what they really are, the current social critique of modern capitalism and a certain formula for its ecological-administrative stabilisation. Both are about the crisis of the capitalist regime, but one as an enemy and the other as a readaptor. Indeed, anti-developmentalism is one of the appellatives used to criticise capitalist globalisation from the point of view of the struggles in defence of neighbourhoods and non-urban territory, while degrowth is a catechism of orientations and measures with which to confront exclusion and make it compatible with it. The former is based on a critique of the ideology of progress; the latter is based on a critique of the unlimited growth of the economy. One is eminently negative, it comes to life in the heat of confrontations with the system it seeks to abolish; it is therefore the fruit of activists who theorise. The other is fundamentally positive, born in the offices of the university and the administration, and is therefore a product of experts and civil servants who in no way aspire to subvert any order. The references of anti-development are the AntiTAV Assembly of Euskalherria, the ZAD of Nantes, the mobilisation against the Lemoiz nuclear power station or the occupation of villages threatened by the Itoiz dam. Degrowth, on the other hand, will point to ecovillages, social currencies, consumer groups and integral cooperatives.

Original text: https://lapeste.org/2019/04/miguel-amoros-antidesarrollismo-vs-decrecimiento/

3

captaindread1 wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Barut in by !deleted32466

It is very funny to see how Guattari is considered as a respectable reference, taking into account that his life is completely disconnected from their writings; a typical bourgeoise intellectual. Enjoy the magic.

−1

captaindread1 wrote

Reply to by !deleted32466

Respect, but without society, there's not intelligence nor rationality, quoting Bakunin.

−1

captaindread1 OP wrote

Agree; the individualistic dogma that rules our societies is just irrational; life is characterized by the emergent properties which result from complex systems.

In the same way that you can explaint complex pluricelular organism from the properties of its constituyent parts, that is cells, you can't understand the potential of the whole humanity just by isolating individuals and considering that those are just the sum of each part. I mean, for example, intelligence is a emergent property of the society.

3

captaindread1 wrote (edited )

Global conditions are changing, and are not comparable to any one in the past; then past experiences can't be extrapolated. Do you want to know if an anarchist society is possible? Just work hard for that goal, collect the result and analyze them.

2