- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
There’s clearly a lean to the left side of things in Lemmy instances, with many people attacking people at the right.
In some cases regarding the climate crisis, there’s people blaming it on capitalism while hinting that communism/socialism are the solution to the climate crisis, because somehow having the state controlling the entire economy will lead to stop CO2 emissions.
A bit from the article:
The best way to protect the environment is to get rich. That way, there is enough money not only to meet the needs of ordinary people, but also to pay for cleaner power plants and better water-treatment facilities. Since capitalism is the best way to create wealth, humanity should stick with it.
Not the first time I’ve heard about this concept, and the more i look into the world the more I agree with it. Being green is kind of a luxury that not many people can afford, and the poorer people are the less they can afford green technology.
The article is really bad on multiple fronts.
First, it somehow thinks that Marxist-Leninism is the original communism, which is just silly. It is neither original nor official. It was just a strand of authoritarian, central-planning socialism which is largely rejected in the West and by current socialist movements and revolutions such as the Rojava Revolution and the EZLN.
Secondly, it misses the point by a mile. You can’t ever earn enough money to make the world grener if you ruin the world while making money. Capitalist system has those who own means of productions, the capitalists, and their main goal is always to make more money and grow. A culture that has a arisen to compliment this need, consumerism, is what frives infinite growth within the finite world that is killing us.
Yes, some places should go richer and have more industries, but a lot od the world overoroduces by a huge margin, while at the same time running out of housing due to insane amount of landlord ownership over property.
There is no Green Capitalism. Not because they (the capitalists) don’t want it (they don’t), but because the system itslef relies on infinite growth, which inevitably leads to overexploitation of our common planet.
EZLN and Rojava aren’t socialist. They have some positive components but that doesn’t make them socialist
Let’s agree to disagree
No, you are wrong. You don’t know your definitions
I’d suggest either listing why or just move on. I can find multiple sources that at least claim it’s ideology is some form of socialism. For someone not educated on the details of these two entities, that’s enough to at least back up the claim its arguable. If you’re claiming it’s not even arguable, at least share why instead of just repeating yourself.
Agree. I am currently AFK but will share some useful links and my own arguments as t why I think that the Rojava in Syria and EZLN (Zapatistas) in Mexico are socialist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
Please adress the actual question, not quote literature form the 19th centry. If Marx wasn’t interpertable in 101 ways we woudn’t have disagreements about what socialism is… but he was and he also lived in a different stage od capitalism.
Give me proper arguments concerning EZLN and/or Rojava.
EZLN doesn’t claim to be socialist. I’m not sure of any first party claim by them about socialism being followed. Rojava actively opposes socialism by working with the US to sell oil which is allowed to be sold by private groups and not the government. We have minor disagreements about socialism but even single socialist group agrees with the premise that the workers must control the means of production. That’s the basic meaning
Ok, first, to clear something up. Just like a movement can claim to be socialist while keeping all the capitalist modes of production while also negating basic freedoms to its citizens - so too can a movement be socialist without claiming that or using its traditional symbolism or lexicon… However, in EZLN and Rojava case - both do that.
Rojava
The main ideological leader behind Kurdish resistance in Turkey and its successful revolution in Syria is Abdullah Ocalan. He is the founder of the PKK, Kurdistan’s Workers Party, and has lead a guerilla war in the name of the Kurdish State, absolute gender equality and against capitalism from 1970s until his arrest in 1999. He has since been imprisoned for life in Turkey. However, while being a Marxist Leninist in the beginning, he changed his mind, and the whole ideology of his party, towards more Anarchist Socialism by releasing several books that are the foundation of his ideology of “democratic federalism”, which is in most ways just an evolved version of Anarcho-syndicalist ideology as implemented in Spain.
Here are some words from the big man himself:
"The PKK, while proving Kurdish existence beyond any doubt, got stuck in nation-statism. The ensuing period of self-criticism revealed the anti-socialist and anti-democratic essence of nation-statism. The speedy dissolution of real socialism in the 1990s contributed to a deeper understanding of the underlying factors behind the crisis. The dissolution of real socialism was caused by power and real socialist nation state problematics. To be more precise, the crisis of socialism was the result of an inadequate understanding of the problem of power and the state. When the contradictions of state and power, set out so starkly by the Kurdish question, coalesced with the wider global crisis of real socialism, a comprehensive analysis of the issue of the state and power became inevitable. To this end, in a significant part of my defense, I tried to analyze the state and power throughout civilizational history. I concentrated on presenting the transformation of the phenomena of state and power in the context of capitalist modernity – the present-day hegemonic civilization. I specifically argued that the transformation of power into the nation-state was the basis of capitalism. This was an important thesis. I tried to demonstrate that in the absence of power being or gained through the nation-state model, capitalism could not have become the new hegemonic system. The nation-state was the fundamental tool that made capitalist hegemony possible. Therefore, I tried to prove that socialism, as anti-capitalism, presenting itself as what I call ‘historical-society’, could not establish itself as based on the same state model, in other words, as a real socialist nation-state. I tried to show that the idea that socialism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, could only be constructed through central nation-states was indeed a fundamental defect of scientific socialism. I went on to present 10the thesis that socialism could not be constructed through the state, especially the nation-state, and that an insistence on this could only result in the most degenerate versions of capitalism as experienced in many instances, but especially in the actually existing socialism of Russia and China. As a necessary precur- sor to this thesis, I analyzed the system of central civilization throughout history, the concept of power, and the structure of capitalist modernity’s state and power which is the prevalent structure unique to our era. My main conclusion was that socialists could not have a nation-state principle. Rather, the solution to the national question should be based on the principle of the democratic nation. The practical expression of this, as I will try to show, is the KCK (Union of Democratic Communities in Kurdistan) experience.” -
Democratic Nation - by Abdullah Ocalan
I would gather that this makes it very clear that the ideology of Democratic Federalism, as implemented in Rojava, is no doubt socialism. In it, worker-cooperatives (not for profit ones) are prevalent and use of the lands in its many communes is often common. It is a true attempt at a stateless, ecological, feminist and just society where the workers own the means of production. I will not bombard you with links to interviews, on-the-ground reporting, books and other products of the Rojava revolution. You are clearly well read and can use the internet, and can easily find snippets from daily life troubled but free Rojava.
EZLN
EZLN, admirably, refrains from putting an exact title to its political orientation, simply putting it as “left”, they are very clearly an Anarchist/Socialist society. They have a functioning demonetized, cooperative economy, free healthcare and education and, to be frank, this is the freaking flag. I think it is statement enough.
You’re not going to convince anyone of anything this way. You either don’t have a handle on the topic to make your point or don’t want to admit you’re wrong. If you want to prove someone got something wrong in math, you don’t just link to a book.
If you don’t care to participate in discussions aside from trying to show you know more than someone else, why interrupt?
Either explain it or get out of the way.
Agree. I am currently AFK but will share some useful links and my own arguments as t why I think that the Rojava in Syria and EZLN (Zapatistas) in Mexico are socialist.
Jeez a communist disliking such an article, what a surprise.
Yes, I am a communist and I do dislike this article. However, whatever your own political orientation is, you ought to dislike it to for a simply for being untrue.
This is hardly a valuable response. “Ugh, someone who disagrees doesn’t like it. What a surprise.” Add something of value next time. If they were wrong with a statement or conclusion, etc.