ジン

Absolutely unending and limitless nightmare

What is the reasoning for insisting on ‘th’ avoidance? Does he think he’s ‘poisoning the scraped data’ or something along those lines?

I would receive such a description with nothing but respect and appreciation!

I really don’t mean to insist on splitting hairs or further complicate matters. Others are getting involved and I seem to have perturbed more than a few with what I’ve already said. I admit, I am absolutely an insensitive brute that really must learn to do better, tho I hope I’m still allowed to ask for help and clarity. Any feedback that isn’t too degrading is most welcome.

I’m obviously not great at expressing things, so I did wish to try an answer to your question(sry for delays; am hardstuck at long workdays) for my own development on top of what I hope is an obvious respect for you and your contributions/work.

The main missing point for me was why/how specifically does the removal of the ‘profit drive’ alone stop the ‘need drive’ from expanding in its place? If a socialist state is trying to meet the advancing needs of its substantial population, the material requirement constantly grows. What is the specific mechanism that forces a socialist planner to say, “No, we cannot provide this new advancement to everyone because the mining required would cross our ecological limits”? It seems like whatever forces the planner to restrict consumption to stay within physical boundaries is, by definition, an act of degrowth, no?

When the state decides that green infrastructure is a pressing need, what forces the planner to say “No, we must limit this specific project because the physical cost to the local watershed is too high”? Without that limiting principle, it seems like the planner just approves the massive extraction anyway, just with better intentions than a capitalist. I don’t mean to make this only about scaling back green infra tho. Just providing a baseline standard for many largely populated regions/areas would already exceed the carrying capacity.

Again, I feel I am merely questioning your optimism further, but the answers I don’t have might be the only reason I stick to my moderately conservative preference. I do strongly hope my pessimism is most wrong. I guess you could say I do ultimately wish to be converted. Politics is more religious than religion itself some times lol

PS: Apologies for my previous comment which seems to be removed. I don’t remember what I said, but I am sorry for any grievances caused—Please advise if there is anything I can do to reconcile/be forgiven

Look at all that bloat, what a kludge

I have zero arguments worth reposting sorry. It just took a long time to clarify my ‘moderately conservative communist’ label. Despite the downvote tally, I have zero beef with him or any other comrade. It was a comment of humor that has been greatly misinterpreted i think

You are absolutely right that the terms clash and it makes for a confusing label to those on both sides i think. I do prefer to keep using it though because I think that naturally pre-occuring confusion points to something important about the situation. I realize now my earlier framing of communist means and conservative ends was backwards i guess. Since global capital is the true radical force destroying our social fabric, merely conserving the present is not enough. We actually need the conservative discipline of a strong state to impose order and push us forward into a truly emancipatory communist future. I am still unsure if this is the best way to articulate it, but does it make more sense? I feel like I just sound like cowbee now, but I also never felt I disagreed with him in much of anything substantial to begin with

Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static “status quo.” It isn’t. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if “conservative” means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.

The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine’s current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine’s operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.

The thread already highlights this, but the target of the change dictates the label.

You are assuming capitalism is the steady baseline and communism is the disruption. But in reality, global capital is the true revolutionary force. It constantly tears apart the planet, destroying ecosystems just to keep expanding. It is insanely radical.

So if capital is the radical disruption, then what does it mean to be a conservative? ‘oppose change’ certainly doesn’t cover it or much of anything at all. It means you want to conserve the basic conditions of life against this chaos. I am a communist because it takes a radical break to stop capital, but I am a conservative because the whole point is to defend the physical world from its destructive progress. Communist means, conservative ends.

I feel like your true definition of ‘change’ means ‘movement toward liberation’ if you could only be more specific. If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense, but it is also the only sane and radical thing to do. You need a revolutionary tool (communism) to apply the brakes, but the goal is ultimately conservative (keeping the train from crashing).

Yes and I suspect you too may be a sentient life-force. Stay safe

As stated earlier, my best points were essentially ignored. If that’s what ‘getting dunked on’ means, I’m beyond fine with it lol

I don’t know how this is mud throwing when he describes himself as an optimist and at the same time was the ‘clueless one’ on what a moderately conservative communist stands for.

I love your take though, especially the ‘parse your scattered ideology’ bit, that was hilarious. I believe Cowbee has been clued in on my perspective despite my own cluelessness haha

Thank you for linking the comment thread for me.

Lable your axis-es please

Removed by mod

I’m also curious of this, but I also don’t fully understand what everyone is assuming is going to happen next? I don’t like this but why is everyone saying run now?