A friend of mine says that he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna...

A friend of mine says that he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna, I don't agree with that but it aroused my interest. Are there any good books about ecology and similar subjects about the impact society has on the earth we live on and the way we treat our environment?

Other urls found in this thread:

monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/trump-and-climate-catastrophe/
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/26/511636325/its-a-big-one-iowa-pipeline-leaks-nearly-140-000-gallons-of-diesel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
businessinsider.com.au/chinas-air-pollution-is-in-a-bad-spot-2015-8
indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-toxic-air-pack-of-cigarettes-carcinogenic-pollution/1/805081.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

everyone rate the first line of my novella

>"I am skeptical towards meta-narratives." said John Everyman

fuck off postmodernist cuck

T.Derrida

nature is not as fragile as people make it out to be, and even then, its survival is paramount to capitalism as (in a generalized sense) unhealthy planet -> unhealthy people -> (turmoil ->) unhealthy income statements.

So yes, maybe a couple cute tigers or elephants will go extinct, but this loss is mostly symbolic, its weight mostly sentimental, and it doesn't mean we're destroying the earth as much as people want you to think.

Are there books about this?
The subject is very interesting to me, he seems to rely heavily on the idea that Capitalist consumerism is destroying the world, but I can't make a proper argument against it without falling back on the fact that there are no singular causes and nothing is that simple.

could you two clowns please rate my opening sentence?

It's not that good

shit/10

>he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna
>it aroused my interest
stating the obvious arouses you?

It's funny how people blame capitalism, when the greatest environmental disaster in history happened under communism.

they're all symptoms of the same disease.
civilization

Where exactly is it written on paper that Capitalism wants to destroy the ecosystem, otherwise it's not a primary use of Capitalism and you're just being a typical ideologue.

Bookchin

>anarchist
why would anyone read books written by people that deny basic biology

Bookchin dropped eco-anarchism though

OP wants books that defend his argument on ecology and capitalism

Both academic and corporate economics has shifted heavily to focus on 'social responsibility', so I'm sure there are books which deal specifically with the relationship between environment and capitalism. This issue is completely irrelevant for the field I work in + my philosophy about capitalism, so I can't recommend you anything.

However, since I'm guessing these arguments with your friend are easily reduced to a more general case for/against capitalism, I'll try give you some tips.

First off, ignore all the 'Basic Principles of Economics' books you see being memed around here, the ones edgy right-wingers recommend to liberals as if its contents somehow make a case against socialism. They do not; and if they do, the book is biased. Economics is not a well-understood science, and cases can be made for Marxian as well as neoclassical economics (as taught in most capitalist nations), for each school has plausible assumptions, each has strengths and weaknesses, and each is important to a complete understanding of the field. Anyone who claims socialism or communism does not work simply 'because of economics' loses the argument instantly: most basic economic theory as possessed by the general public is positive as opposed to normative, and it at best explains in very shallow and inaccurate terms certain economic interactions; it is entirely void of advice on which system or policy ought to be followed, and any conclusion toward preference based on these shallow bits of knowledge is a non sequitur.

Second, don't fall in the trap of thinking of capitalism as the greatest thing imaginable. Its proper functioning relies on conditions that are not always met (e.g. sufficient competition), and its failings are numerous. The way to deal with this from a rhetorical point of view is to admit immediately that capitalism is flawed and that there are circumstances under which the proletariat and the environment are indeed exploited. (Also, don't suggest that socialism is per definition bad and incompatible with capitalist society; a degree of socialism can be very beneficial if implemented sparingly by sober individuals.)

To summarise my point thus far: you cannot use economics to convey why capitalism is the best system currently available, because to make even a remotely sound argument based on economic theory will require a deep knowledge and conviction of complex micro- and macroeconomic concepts. You do not have this amount of understanding, nor do I, nor do most professors

(cont.)

There are, however, some things you can say in favor of capitalism that are neither dishonest nor shallow. One is to point at history: where capitalism is implemented there is a noticable increase in wealth; where socialism or communism is implemented there is corruption and poverty. Your opponent may make the point that some of the wealthiest European countries are socialist. This is not necessarily wrong, but the assumption that they are wealthy because they are socialist is. Many of these countries still thrive off the wealth they created in an intensely capitalistic past (e.g. The Netherlands), or have a very large amount of natural resources compared to their population (Norway). Even then they are not as socialistic as Americans make them out to be; they are misinterpreted as being so because of their prominent liberal values and expansive welfare systems, while in reality, capitalism is deeply rooted in their culture.

Another thing you can do, which I think is most powerful, is to explain why companies are not as evil and exploitive as one may think, and how capitalism is actually a tempering force. A little knowledge of finance is required here, but not much. Know the following: (1) companies are owned and controlled by shareholders, (2) shareholders' primary objective is to see the value of their shares increase, (3) the value of these shares is directly correlated to the value of the underlying companies, and (4) the value of a company is determined by all the money it can make between now and the future. Now let's say you are a logging company, and you own a piece of forest. You can cut it all down, sell the wood, make some money for your shareholders, leave a wasteland, and dissolve the firm. Or you can cut it all down, plant new trees (and incur some extra costs), and make money for your shareholders from now until eternity. Which company will be more valuable? Certainly the one that is more sustainable, more responsible and efficient with its resources. Some instances require government interference: coal plants are one. For shareholders it is 'optimal' to burn as much coal as possible; for the environment it is not. The government interferes and starts demanding the firm to pay for every X amount of harmful gas it produces. This causes coal-fuelled energy to be more expensive, reduces shareholder returns, and forces the company to start looking for alternative, cleaner, more efficient ways to make money.

(cont.)

I want to go to bed now, but to summarise my thoughts:
1. Don't argue for any economic system based on economic theory, because your knowledge is too limited to make a convincing case.
2. Be open to the criticisms of capitalism, because much of it is fair (although exaggerated) and there are many examples of its failings.
3. Socialism is not as prominent in Europe as is often conceived, and therefore it does not serve as an example for a wealthy socialist environment. There are no nations that are as socialist as the west is capitalist that have not descended into poverty and corruption.
4. Basic knowledge of business and corporate structure will allow you to reason that value is driven by long term profits, which is driven by ethical and sustainable behavior, though not in all cases. This also means that government interference is sometimes necessary to steer priorities in the corporate world.

Maybe these arguments aren't as strong as one would like them to be, but at least they are intellectually sound. You're working a complex subject with limited knowledge, so you'll always find yourself having to concede seemingly simple points that are actually very difficult to defend on a theoretical basis. The objective case for or against any economic system is beyond the scope of most people's knowledge. All you can do is point at examples of failed communist states, the marvels capitalism has produced, and try to convince him that it's not all so bad, sometimes even a little pretty.

fucking RIPPED

Capitalism doesn't want to destroy the ecosystem, because it doesn't care if it destroys the ecosystem. It has no capacity to care, no collective organizational structure to do so. But its central drive, profit, has every reason to resist and thwart any supra-capitalist efforts, including environmentalist ones, that might threaten its short-term opportunities. And it's very successful there, doesn't even have to try much, because it dominates our society utterly. That's the problem.

There's a shit tonne. This should scare the shit out of you at least enough to take it seriously.
monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/trump-and-climate-catastrophe/

You are correct. Naive idealists can come up with whatever fantasy they want but capitalists never have and never will work toward preservation, nor enlargement, of the environment, precisely because it's anathema to profit motive. Why else is the forced removal of protestors against the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is not only a guaranteed incoming eco-disaster but an a guaranteed incoming human rights disaster in that it will poison drinking water for who knows how many people for who knows how many years, AND it's an violation of sovereignty) so under-reported?

test

I can't recommend you any books, but the truth is that capitalism isn't fully responsible for the destruction of the environment, it just accelerates it. That being said, a transition to another economic system doesn't by itself guarantee ecological sustainability, even if that's a global socialist state or communist society.
The ugly truth is that there are just too many people living on the planet right now. Things like private property and meat eating are just accelaratory factors.

...

Its the elites testing The Citizens, We The People's Moral Fibre, And Democracy; "Is the majority stopping us? We, The Government, posted the plans on the news sufficiently, we broadcasted reality to the world, citizens know that reality is broadcasted to the world, so they can be informed so that they can vote, and live.

The Majority, that wants to vote, have a say in What The Government Does; The Government Broadcasted The Plans; The Majority Did Not Stop Them; Democracy.

Thanks user, funny you mention the Netherlads by the way, because that's where I'm from and my friend mentioned it as a having successfully implemented Socialism, which is far from the truth.

>A friend of mine says that he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna

wow a generic "i'm a college freshman and a trotskyist and i know more than you" view of the world

To add to this, The Netherlands has a very long history of republican rule before that republicanism turned into liberalism, which split into several liberalist movements unlike countries like Germany and France which had Socialist parties, nationalist parties, etc.
The only parties in the Netherlands were Social-Liberals, Feminist-Liberals, National-Liberals, Protestant-Liberals, etc.
Liberalism has become deeply rooted in Duch politics, even after the forming of real individual parties, most parties still have some liberal values, even our far-right party does.

This is bullshit.

Unhealthy planet negatively benefits wealth, sure. But look up "tragedy of the commons". As long as a resource is shared, people will try to profit from it as much or more than their competitors can.

>So yes, maybe a couple cute tigers or elephants will go extinct

No. It's more serious than that. In Australia, giant kelp is dying off and about to become extinct because waters are warming up and preventing the kelp from regenerating. Add to this that sea urchins are eating the kelp like crazy because their natural predators -- crayfish, have been completely over fished. The kelp disappears because of warming water and sea urchins, but that also means that fish who use the kelp as habitat have nowhere to live, so they die. Whatever ate them can no longer find food and decrease in number. Humans can't catch as many fish in the area and so have to use other areas more, and add more strain to other species. All of these fish start to decrease in number and then the remaining fish are even more stressed.

Over fishing has already cased several dishes to be completely removed from Japanese cuisine because the animals have gone completely extinct, and so the Japanese have to fish other species more, and more and more are going to become extinct.

Other food needs those fish too, so when they decrease in number, other species decrease in number again. Before long, almost no one in the human race eats seafood because its prohibitively expensive. And then land animals start dying off and we face a total eco system collapse.

If bees die off in large numbers, which they have been doing in many places, then they don't go around pollinating crops, and so our prices for agricultural goods goes up, and eventually famine.

Before you know it, the only thing you can regularly find in the sea are jellyfish, crops yield very little, and multiple ecosystems have suffered collapse.

Some estimates say that the global temperature could increase by 7 degrees within 100 years with current emissions levels, which is pretty much catastrophic and apocalyptic.

>Some estimates say that the global temperature could increase by 7 degrees within 100 years with current emissions levels, which is pretty much catastrophic and apocalyptic.

The same estimates that were saying we were going to enter a new ice age in the '70s, widespread starvation, city dwellers would have to wear gas masks due to pollution, natural resources would dwindle so much that gas prices would be $9 a gallon, and so on and so on.

>city dwellers would have to wear gas masks due to pollution

City dwellers in highly polluted areas do this everyday. This happens in many cities around the world. In some cities, breathing in air for a day gives you as many carcinogens as a pack of cigarettes.

>The same estimates that were saying we were going to enter a new ice age in the '70s
These estimates weren't backed by 97% of relevant scientists.

> natural resources would dwindle so much that gas prices would be $9 a gallon

This will happen. Petroleum is finite on earth.

Yes people have speculated many things, but there usually is not a consensus as there is now. Most studies have shown that 97% of scientists (physicists, climatologists, earth scientists particularly) believe in man made climate change and global warming.

>City dwellers in highly polluted areas do this everyday
Asians do it because they're weird as fuck about germs. They're not fucking wearing gas masks.

>In some cities, breathing in air for a day gives you as many carcinogens as a pack of cigarettes.
Source?

>97% of relevant scientists.

Alternative facts. The 97% stat has been debunked many times.

>This will happen. Petroleum is finite on earth.

Of course it is but you're intentionally misinterpreting that statement.

google murray bookchin

That's my friend's argument, not mine.

Capitalism? Debatable.

Consumerism? Totally.

If the market driving capitalism was for locally produced food, green technology, nationally specific technologies (why does Britain have such a market for Mediterranean style decking), buy-for-life appliances that can be cheaply repaired, etc. then capitalism would actually be what saves the world.

Capitalism is just the front for consumerism. And while people can consume without it directly affecting THEM personally, nothing will change unless we can change the culture of the purchaser. We're still in the BUY BIG AND BUY NOW 80s economy in the minds of too many politicians and voters. They wont know what to do when Gen Y and Z (who are far more accepting of climate change science than their parents) become the largest part of the buyers.

>its survival is paramount to capitalism as (in a generalized sense) unhealthy planet -> unhealthy people -> (turmoil ->) unhealthy income statements.

capitalism isn't a person, it's not gonna "realize" that it's fucking itself in the long run (i.e. the great recession)

Are you retarded? Look at a picture of smog in Shanghai. It's not for germs.

The problem is that most defenders of capitalism have no idea what they're defending (neither do socialists, a lot of the time, but that's for another day). Smith used the term "free market" in a derogatory way, he never said it was a good thing.

Add in to that that with fiat money there's no limit to how much a small amount of people can accumulate, because the "capital" doesn't need to exist for them to have it. In a capital-backed economy then the ultra-rich would have to (in a sense) put capital back in to the economy in order to purchase. With fiat money there's nothing going in or going out.

Add into this that classical economists like Smith argued that only SPENDING should be taxed, and never EARNING. This was to defend the workers who would be punished simple for working.

>Add into this that classical economists like Smith argued that only SPENDING should be taxed, and never EARNING. This was to defend the workers who would be punished simple for working.

wouldn't this would punish workers more because they spend a larger part of their earnings than the rich do

Not so much, because then someone could cut back and save which is far harder when you have a portion of your wages skimmed off. Also you're not taking brackets into account. In such a model (IIRC) brackets would be based on the value of the goods. So the government could tax a yacht to 50% of its value or something, and make food staples and suchlike tax free.

The issue with this in the modern context is that welfare states need far too much money than that could possibly provide.

>the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is not only a guaranteed incoming eco-disaster but an a guaranteed incoming human rights disaster in that it will poison drinking water for who knows how many people for who knows how many years

You mean like the hundreds of other pipelines that are working just fine? Oh wait...

Surely by now, America would have no drinking water left.

>AND it's an violation of sovereignty

Native Americans don't have sovereignty. They're given a few breadcrumbs (read: reserves) by their conquerors, which is frankly generous.

>You mean like the hundreds of other pipelines that are working just fine? Oh wait...

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/26/511636325/its-a-big-one-iowa-pipeline-leaks-nearly-140-000-gallons-of-diesel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century


much safety so much safety

The plural of anecdote is not data.

>Asians do it because they're weird as fuck about germs. They're not fucking wearing gas masks.

Yes. On many days they are. And in India too. They are wearing GAS masks because there is too many particulates in the air of bad stuff. You can look it up. The smog comes on and people have quite recently had to rush to buy gas masks.


>Source?
businessinsider.com.au/chinas-air-pollution-is-in-a-bad-spot-2015-8


indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-toxic-air-pack-of-cigarettes-carcinogenic-pollution/1/805081.html

Just the top two on Google. I don't have time to do a thorough search.

>The 97% stat has been debunked many times.
Source? Every scientist I've talked to about it, and every scientist I've heard speak about it at my university seem to believe that its true. Not to mention that the statistic has been repeated with very little deviation in not one, but several peer reviewed studies.

Lastly I would point out that many Communist countries caused a dramatic man-made impact on the planet’s ecology. When the Berlin wall came down, statistics showed that almost half of all the moving water and a quarter of still water had been permanently destroyed, half the country’s lakes were dead and unable to sustain any form of life. Not even a third of industrial sewage was treated, and over half of it was domestic. Half of East-Germany’s forests were so damaged by acid rain by the production of Sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and coal dust, which were the largest productions in the world at that time. Air pollution was twelve time worse than found in West Germany, and almost half of East-Germany lived in conditions that would have caused a smog warings in West-Germany.
There was no equipment in all of Germany necessary to clean Sulphur, besides one outdated power station that was falling to decay. The Communist government did not have a single environmental policy, and would it have continued as it were, most of the East-German environment would have eventually died.

>A friend of mine says that he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna, I don't agree

How can you not agree with that. Whether human progress should be valued higher than ecological concerns and the degree of such "destruction" can be debated, but it definitely exists.

>Alternative facts. The 97% stat has been debunked many times.

Got any links? I feel like having a lugh

...

In the Soviet Union, almost half of the people live in air that was polluted four times over the maximum levels allowed for human safety. Half of the industrial waste in the capital city went untreated, in Leningrad almost half the children had intestinal disorders cause by drinking the contaminated water.
75 percent of water in the Soviet Union was polluted and over 50 percent was no longer potable in 1992. And what about Chernobyl, a Soviet nuclear sector or the victor-classs submarine explosion in 1985 that released tremendous amounts of radiactive material The Soviets decided to dispose of it by dumping it into the Kara Sea and that wasn’t the first time the Soviets did this, over 60.000 of curies of radioactivity, and 165.000 cubic meters of liquid waste were dumped in the sea in Soviet times.
Soviet officials denied everything but it was discovered that they had been doing this for over 30 years, including their solution to the floating barrels, which meant puncturing them so that the radioactive waste would spill out and sink the barrels. Russia’s dumping groun for Soviet nuclear weapons was considered the most polluted spot on earth at that time and unliveable for any human being. The government tried to irrigate the desert to grow rice, melons, cereals, and cotton for export., but it ended up drying the lake almost completely.

There is no society that ever existed which had zero pollution or harm to the environment, the question that is important is managing said pollution and which system is best positioned to accomplish these problems. Capitalism greatly assists in addressing environmental problems, and the richest countries also happen to be the cleanest.

USA was a mistake

t. George Washington

Eco-Fascism is actually the cleanest.

Yeah but that's not correlated to Capitalism, that's human development, the more advanced your civilization is, the more it pollutes.

Rapidly industrializing countries like the USSR, China, but also fascist Italy couldn't really afford the luxury of giving a shit about nature. That's why the richest aka the most developed countries are the cleanest.

>Only points out non-Capitalist countries

Got it senpai.

yeah but this is your brain on ecofascism

and I agree, but that doesn't make the statement "capitalism negatively impacts the environment" any less true

>the more advanced your civilization is, the more it pollutes

This however is entirely debatable. At this stage of civilization humanity pollutes more than it did during the bronze age, but that doesn't mean pollution and progress are inextricably linked. It all depends on which energy sources a society uses and how it uses them. A good chunk of the developed world is polluting less than it did 30 years ago thanks to technological advances. Coal and petroleum just happened to be the lower hanging fruit at the time.

>Fascist Italy
>not capitalist

Mein Gott!

But yeah, liberal capitalism is kinda shit for getting underdeveloped countries on track. It universally requires protectionism and a planned economy of some sort.

These countries were being forced through the stage the most developed countries went through in the 19th century under heavy pollution.

Genuinely made me lol.

That's debatable, their Capitalism was very collectivized, didn't last very long, and quickly turned into a war economy.

>All these Marxist pseudo-intellectuals in the thread talking about "Capitalism" as if it's literally Lucifer in Paradise Lost

Remind me again how you guys aren't religious.

Ofcourse, after people stopped worshipping a deity the people flocked to the state as Commies as an alternative source for collective power, Marxist monotheistic desire for singular causes is like a Christian fundamentalist fleeing to what's comfortable over what's reasonable.

They also have an utopian end-goal just like the Christians, that can only be reached by being a good fateful boy to their lionized state.

>babby's first critique of marxism

>I can't refute anything

Many people could be, but just because they are religious does not mean they hate capitalism, it just means they like philanthropy.

In any case, thank you for pushing AWAY the notion that conservative religious neckbeards are the only kind of religious person that exists.

That's like a composition/division fallacy just so you know.

Might be the first but it's also one of the best.

Nietzsche had you guys figured out over a century ago.

This, Nietzsche knew the dangers of collectivist Marxism even before it happened.

The point I was trying to make is that Marxists speak about capitalism in the same metaphysical language as devout Christians people talk about demons or Satan, which is quite ironic considering they see themselves as materialists.

They obviously don't understand that they are just possessed by some dangerous idea, that'll probably don't do them any good in their own life, nor help anyone else.

There's not anything at all wrong or delusional about believing in something extrasensory. A spiritual world exists beyond this one, user.

>When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is 'right," 'justice," and *equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his
own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering - what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way.

>Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. 'If I am canaille, you ought to be too" - on such logic are revolutions made.

>Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself - the socialist does the former, the Christian, for example, the latter - really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing, is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a
Christian, to repeat it once more - he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches 'the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander and besmirch society. The 'last judgement" is the sweet comfort of revenge -the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off.

We are pretty much destroying our oceans right now in the name of capitalism.

Well, first of all the Marxist view on capitalism and its historical place in the world is not comparable to the role Lucifer plays in Christian mythology. Capitalism didn't bring "evil into the world", Marx and Engels regularly praise it for its progressive nature compared to feudalism. However, it is completely sound to seek the problems of any given society within its socio-economic system. This has nothing to do with the scapegoating you are trying to accuse Marxism of.

Next, the >muh state that burgers always go on and on about is not what Marxism is about. In Marxist theory the state is not some entitiy standing outside of society like in liberalism, but a tool of class rule. Just as it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to leave the economy to market forces it's in the interest of the proletariat to have the economy planned for use.

This also moots your last point, the end goal being bestowed upon humanity by "the state". Marxism emphasises the active participation of humanity in forging its own destiny, albeit within the limits set by historical circumstances.

"Die Befreiung der Arbeiterklasse muß das Werk der Arbeiterklasse selbst sein." - The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself.

*state capitalism

For all it's worth, pic related is quite interesting.

Although he is generally a Dawkins/Tyson -tier pseudo-intellectual Liberal scientofag, it doesn't really show in this book.

And now you're lumping in anarchists and early "utopian" socialists with Marx.

Nietzsche's critique of these has never been any other than "waaaah ur just jelly *eats 2 kilos of fruit*"

>your suffering is never anyone else's fault

truly the cuckest of philosophies

Read Sloterdjik. These questions are already solved.

>And now you're lumping in anarchists and early "utopian" socialists with Marx.

He was clearly trashing all of them, as you'd know if you read The Will to Power.

>It's always somebody else's fault! Never mine!

Pathetic cucks.

Wanna do it on the flora?


And how bout you Fauna? Ya wanna?

>A friend of mine says that he believes Capitalism and consumerist culture is destroying the earth's flora and fauna
How is it not? There's a reason we can't have 100% unrestricted capitalism. There's no reason for you, the individual, not to exploit the planet's resources for maximal gain.

>maybe a couple cute tigers or elephants will go extinct, but this loss is mostly symbolic
>hurr, what are ecosystems

This is amazing, what book is this?

T.Greekbabby

First of all, which Marxism is actually "correct"? Only orthodox Marxist theory from Marx himself, or Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, or any of the other insane balkanized versions of the ideology?

It's quite annoying to argue with you guys, because whenever someone brings up the Soviet Union, you tend to defensively evade it as not actual Marxism in practice, yet you know very well that they believed in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as much as the next Marxist.

I personally think that if you guys actually got international power, you would kill each other over the narcissism of small differences simply because you could.

What I said applies to pretty much all schools of Marxism. Even Marxism-Leninism ("Stalinism") and Maoism hold that the proletariat has to forge its own destiny, even though it's supposed to happen through the class party as its vanguard.

Balkanization is the result of the anti-capitalist left's weakness and stagnation. In times of revolution and a strong international labour movement there would quickly develop a more or less general consensus like it happened directly after the October Revolution.

Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche.

Not sure which book of Nietzsche's it's actually from.

Listen to this:
Read the Unabomber Manifesto

>not actual Marxism in practice, yet you know very well that they believed in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as much as the next Marxist.

The Soviet Union was a very specific set up of bureaucratic and political systems, institutions, powers etc. It does not follow that "from each acording to his ability ..." should always manifest itself as something like the Soviet Union, because its an incredibly vague statement.

The reason people call Marxism-Leninism what they do, and not simply "Marxism" is because Lenin had to basically invent communism in practice, because Marx had written virtually nothing on the practicalities of what such a system would look like or be.

It isn't Marxism in practice, it's an attempt at implementing Marx's ideas on communism in practice.

Share buyback undermines, your second point. Generation of wealth from nothing, no productivity or common good

Sorry third point

Actually it is. Take a lab science class ms dude

That was a cute series of fallacies. But it was fun re-read as an older man

>Implying it contained anything other than pure truth

One day you'll grow out of the ressentiment, kid.

So Veeky Forums will deny the very scientific method to dispute Sam Harris on free will, but will defend climate change because of science? You're all morons.

I thought everybody knew we were poisoning the environment in the name of i-phones.

In fact, I've never met a single person in real life who seriously suggested otherwise, barring one who is an illiterate cocaine fiend, which speaks for itself.
Not to say that consensus is proof, of course.

Look at the list of species that goes extinct every year, and how empty of fish the oceans are compared to earlier times.

If you live in the city or even the suburbs, when was the last time you saw a real forest>
I don't mean these piddly little man-made ones either; I mean the sort of real old growth forest full of mature trees and deadwood where the vegetation grows to head height, and so thick only animals can find their way through the undergrowth?
That is a real forest, ten to nothing few of us have ever seen one, just carefully managed parks and regularly pruned border zones.

...

I've actually met Pentti (I'm Swedish), he's a nice guy despite his insanity

You and your friend are boring and basic thinkers

come back after freshman year

bump