5 ms·

The Marxist, post-capitalist, green manifesto captivating Japan

19 points by jasonhansel 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Was Marx against mass production? I don't think so and a quick Google suggests he wasn't: > important ‘progressive’ features of manufacturing that can be found in Marx's writings and which are discussed here include: division of labour; socialisation of labour; mechanisation; increasing returns to scale; learning-by-doing; technological advancement; and overall, superior potential for cumulative productivity increases All this degrowth stuff seems to come from the surge in fossil fuel propaganda that linked carbon with quality of life. Once you believe that you either say, sod the planet or you try to save the planet/civilization by degrowth. But since it was never true in the first place, both those reactions are wrong. Just stop doing polluting things.
- warinukraine 4y ago
  No, Marx wasn't against mass production. He was against a small number of people owning the mass production.
- giordano-bruno 4y ago
  [dead]
- pxc 4y ago
  Yes and no. Marx saw the Luddism movement, which sought a retreat into artisanal and cottage industries through industrial sabotage, as fundamentally misdirected. But the uncompromising need for constant growth is absolutely implicated in the destructive character of capitalism for Marx. For Marx's own writing on the relationship between capitalism and ecological destruction, look up the phrase 'metabolic rift'. The most famous Marxist ecosocialist I can think of is John Bellamy Foster. Some of his articles and book reviews for Monthly Review might be a good place to start for a look at ecology in contemporary Marxism: https://monthlyreview.org/author/johnbellamyfoster/ https://monthlyreview.org/author/johnbellamyfoster/ In social ecology and the broader (post-)Marxist ecosocialist movement, Murray Bookchin is a huge deal. He argued for reorganizing cities, agriculture, and industry in specific ways for ecological reasons. You can read a lot of his books and articles for free here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/murray-bookchin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/murray-bookc... Any of these sources can give you a sense of why Marxists don't think the necessary changes for stopping pollution will ever come from enlightening capitalists who then change their behavior as business owners in light of their ecological education.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff. I think that 'degrowth' might be one of those 'defund the police' type things, where a good idea is summed up with a short phrase that becomes popular partly because the idea's opponents see it as absurd. I'd never really dug into it as it mostly seemed to be something that reactionaries talked about to rile each other up. I guess it's like saying GDP isn't a good thing to aim for in society. Some people think that's stupid, because they think GDP measures quality of life, while other people think it's sensible because they think GDP doesn't measure quality of life. Which leads to some confusing conversations. And if 'growth' is implied to be 'growth of GDP regardless of sustainability etc.' then it's the same conversation.
cuteboy19 4y ago
What you could not make to work for the past 100 years will surely work now.
- malermeister 4y ago
  We've been trying to make exploitative capitalism work for the past 100 years now too, and all we've gotten is mass suffering and rapidly approaching extinction. Maybe it's time to accept we won't be able to make capitalism work?
  - rakoo 4y ago
    Exploitation is at the heart of Capitalism, so I'd rather say Capitalism has worked exactly ad intended for the past 100 years
    - headbansown 4y ago
      I am reminded of this ancient joke: Is there a difference between capitalism and communism? Yes, in principle. With capitalism, man exploits man. But with communism, it is precisely the opposite.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > all we've gotten is mass suffering Do you really think there was less suffering 100 years ago? By what metric specifically? Over the last 100 years poverty rate has been steadily decreasing, hunger rate has been steadily decreasing, life expectancy has been steadily increasing. All over the world. Capitalism uplifts both rich and poor.
    - malermeister 4y ago
      Capitalist exploitation of our natural resources is causing disasters and untold suffering all over the planet. Hundreds of millions have been displaced by floods in Bangladesh this year alone. Forests everywhere are on fire. We have "draughts of the century" every year now. Hurricanes are more destructive than ever. Meanwhile, sweat shop workers building the cheap junk we've gotten addicted to are committing suicide because they can't bear their conditions, a problem so out of hand factories are putting up nets to catch window jumpers. We're rapidly racing towards the edge of the cliff. If we don't change something drastically, we're all doomed. That's not a system that's working out by any reasonable metric.
ajl666 4y ago
Klaus Schwab strikes again. This is not the professor's idea. This is astroturf. Beware the great reset propaganda.
- warinukraine 4y ago
  I had to look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Reset What's wrong with the ideas there? I had a cursory look and don't see any red flags.
  - antifa 4y ago
    That user most likely was only referring to definitions of _The Great Reset_ used by conspiracy theorists, which usually involves top down, calously enforced mass death/poverty to solve climate change or some other issue. The article is about a different concept: Degrowth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth The idea behind Degrowth is about putting sustainability and human welfare above paperclip-maximizing profits and GDP.
    - ajl666 4y ago
      Degrowth is about omnicide, you dolt.
      - antifa 4y ago
        It sounds like you are so unfamiliar with the term that you should take a gander at the linked wikipedia article to give yourself an introductory understanding of the topic.
  - ajl666 4y ago
    It's almost like you can't connect an energy crisis, food crisis, monetary crisis, and war crisis with the agenda set forth. It's almost as if you have no memory or ability to strategically connect trend dots on a function.
bergenty 4y ago
I don’t like the idea of reducing production, emphasizing degrowth and not continuously making technological progress. The right thing to do is continue doing those things while finding solutions for climate change which I think we’re already on a path to doing albeit it may not get there before things start going wrong. But we’ll make it and we have to keep going till we reach a point of technological advancement where we can truly eliminate all our problems— and I mean down to how we feel which will surely be modifiable using genetic engineering in the not too distant future.
- f_allwein 4y ago
  Serious question: How do you think continually rising production, consumption and growth is even possible on one finite planet?
  - jshzglr 4y ago
    Finite planet, infinite universe.
    - jshzglr 4y ago
      But it would probably be wise at some point to stop growing, lest the alien overseers take out the invasive species.
- antifa 4y ago
  > emphasizing degrowth and not continuously making technological progress False dichotomy. A lot of the manufacturing economy is literal garbage (funkopops, plastic rabbit with Easter colors, etc.) or things that can't be repaired, things that won't last as long as they use to because of corners cut, or because of planned obsolescence. Continued technological progress is a prerequisite for this to work.

19 points by jasonhansel 4y ago

Was Marx against mass production? I don't think so and a quick Google suggests he wasn't: > important ‘progressive’ features of manufacturing that can be found in Marx's writings and which are discussed here include: division of labour; socialisation of labour; mechanisation; increasing returns to scale; learning-by-doing; technological advancement; and overall, superior potential for cumulative productivity increases All this degrowth stuff seems to come from the surge in fossil fuel propaganda that linked carbon with quality of life. Once you believe that you either say, sod the planet or you try to save the planet/civilization by degrowth. But since it was never true in the first place, both those reactions are wrong. Just stop doing polluting things.

warinukraine 4y ago
No, Marx wasn't against mass production. He was against a small number of people owning the mass production.
giordano-bruno 4y ago
[dead]
pxc 4y ago
Yes and no. Marx saw the Luddism movement, which sought a retreat into artisanal and cottage industries through industrial sabotage, as fundamentally misdirected. But the uncompromising need for constant growth is absolutely implicated in the destructive character of capitalism for Marx. For Marx's own writing on the relationship between capitalism and ecological destruction, look up the phrase 'metabolic rift'. The most famous Marxist ecosocialist I can think of is John Bellamy Foster. Some of his articles and book reviews for Monthly Review might be a good place to start for a look at ecology in contemporary Marxism: https://monthlyreview.org/author/johnbellamyfoster/ https://monthlyreview.org/author/johnbellamyfoster/ In social ecology and the broader (post-)Marxist ecosocialist movement, Murray Bookchin is a huge deal. He argued for reorganizing cities, agriculture, and industry in specific ways for ecological reasons. You can read a lot of his books and articles for free here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/murray-bookchin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/murray-bookc... Any of these sources can give you a sense of why Marxists don't think the necessary changes for stopping pollution will ever come from enlightening capitalists who then change their behavior as business owners in light of their ecological education.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff. I think that 'degrowth' might be one of those 'defund the police' type things, where a good idea is summed up with a short phrase that becomes popular partly because the idea's opponents see it as absurd. I'd never really dug into it as it mostly seemed to be something that reactionaries talked about to rile each other up. I guess it's like saying GDP isn't a good thing to aim for in society. Some people think that's stupid, because they think GDP measures quality of life, while other people think it's sensible because they think GDP doesn't measure quality of life. Which leads to some confusing conversations. And if 'growth' is implied to be 'growth of GDP regardless of sustainability etc.' then it's the same conversation.

cuteboy19 4y ago

What you could not make to work for the past 100 years will surely work now.

malermeister 4y ago
We've been trying to make exploitative capitalism work for the past 100 years now too, and all we've gotten is mass suffering and rapidly approaching extinction. Maybe it's time to accept we won't be able to make capitalism work?
- rakoo 4y ago
  Exploitation is at the heart of Capitalism, so I'd rather say Capitalism has worked exactly ad intended for the past 100 years
  - headbansown 4y ago
    I am reminded of this ancient joke: Is there a difference between capitalism and communism? Yes, in principle. With capitalism, man exploits man. But with communism, it is precisely the opposite.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > all we've gotten is mass suffering Do you really think there was less suffering 100 years ago? By what metric specifically? Over the last 100 years poverty rate has been steadily decreasing, hunger rate has been steadily decreasing, life expectancy has been steadily increasing. All over the world. Capitalism uplifts both rich and poor.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    Capitalist exploitation of our natural resources is causing disasters and untold suffering all over the planet. Hundreds of millions have been displaced by floods in Bangladesh this year alone. Forests everywhere are on fire. We have "draughts of the century" every year now. Hurricanes are more destructive than ever. Meanwhile, sweat shop workers building the cheap junk we've gotten addicted to are committing suicide because they can't bear their conditions, a problem so out of hand factories are putting up nets to catch window jumpers. We're rapidly racing towards the edge of the cliff. If we don't change something drastically, we're all doomed. That's not a system that's working out by any reasonable metric.

ajl666 4y ago

Klaus Schwab strikes again. This is not the professor's idea. This is astroturf. Beware the great reset propaganda.

warinukraine 4y ago
I had to look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Reset What's wrong with the ideas there? I had a cursory look and don't see any red flags.
- antifa 4y ago
  That user most likely was only referring to definitions of _The Great Reset_ used by conspiracy theorists, which usually involves top down, calously enforced mass death/poverty to solve climate change or some other issue. The article is about a different concept: Degrowth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth The idea behind Degrowth is about putting sustainability and human welfare above paperclip-maximizing profits and GDP.
  - ajl666 4y ago
    Degrowth is about omnicide, you dolt.
    - antifa 4y ago
      It sounds like you are so unfamiliar with the term that you should take a gander at the linked wikipedia article to give yourself an introductory understanding of the topic.
- ajl666 4y ago
  It's almost like you can't connect an energy crisis, food crisis, monetary crisis, and war crisis with the agenda set forth. It's almost as if you have no memory or ability to strategically connect trend dots on a function.

bergenty 4y ago

I don’t like the idea of reducing production, emphasizing degrowth and not continuously making technological progress. The right thing to do is continue doing those things while finding solutions for climate change which I think we’re already on a path to doing albeit it may not get there before things start going wrong. But we’ll make it and we have to keep going till we reach a point of technological advancement where we can truly eliminate all our problems— and I mean down to how we feel which will surely be modifiable using genetic engineering in the not too distant future.

f_allwein 4y ago
Serious question: How do you think continually rising production, consumption and growth is even possible on one finite planet?
- jshzglr 4y ago
  Finite planet, infinite universe.
  - jshzglr 4y ago
    But it would probably be wise at some point to stop growing, lest the alien overseers take out the invasive species.
antifa 4y ago
> emphasizing degrowth and not continuously making technological progress False dichotomy. A lot of the manufacturing economy is literal garbage (funkopops, plastic rabbit with Easter colors, etc.) or things that can't be repaired, things that won't last as long as they use to because of corners cut, or because of planned obsolescence. Continued technological progress is a prerequisite for this to work.