Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

WHen the capitalists apologize for?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 52
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2007, 17:21
Pioneer
Post 12 Feb 2009, 04:27
Has anyone seen this?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Feb 2009, 04:45
... what?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 52
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2007, 17:21
Pioneer
Post 12 Feb 2009, 04:59
Sorry. For some reason i thought this was a popular signature.
It essentaily says:
When the capitalists apoligize for:
And then it goes on to list a bunch of horrible things

I will think about apologizing for the wrongs of communism
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 865
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2007, 06:42
Komsomol
Post 12 Feb 2009, 05:36
Yes I've seen it before, I did a google image search with a number of key words but couldn't find it.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Feb 2009, 05:55
Isn't it on this site somewhere?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10768
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Feb 2009, 22:42
Link

S-E pics are located in the reference library forum.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2008, 19:05
Komsomol
Post 24 Feb 2009, 15:55
Some things on that list shouldn't be there and some are there two or three times in different forms; 'the mafia', 'organized crime' heroine trafficking' . The one that shouldn't be there is the so called 'environmental degradation'.... when the hell did socialists jump on this bourgeois ideology?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 25 Feb 2009, 00:12
Why is mentioning environmental degradation purely Bourgeois? It's a well established fact that humans have a negative influence on the natural world, even if you are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Feb 2009, 01:04
Quote:
when the hell did socialists jump on this bourgeois ideology?


You should know?
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2008, 19:05
Komsomol
Post 25 Feb 2009, 05:08
Quote:
Why is mentioning environmental degradation purely Bourgeois? It's a well established fact that humans have a negative influence on the natural world, even if you are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.


The very distinction between 'humans' and 'natural world' is suspect, so saying they have a 'negative influence' is even more suspect.

Quote:
You should know?


don't get it...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 25 Feb 2009, 06:17
I thought you might reply with something like that. I wasn't trying to make any distinction. I'll word my statement another way. It is easily demonstrable that humans, as part of the natural word, are degrading it. Insufficiently regulated deforestation, extinction of species due to excessive hunting and urban sprawl, pollutants resulting in acid rain. All of these things negatively impact the Earths ecology and in most countries, haven't been addressed sufficiently. And of course, there's climate change to consider.

I would ague that environmentalism isn't a bourgeois ideology. In most instances, the bourgeoisie is resisting measures to protect the environment because they know it will negatively impact their profits. I believe it is a weapon with which we can attack capitalists.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2008, 19:05
Komsomol
Post 25 Feb 2009, 22:47
Quote:
I'll word my statement another way.


You failed to reword your statement.

You began with:
Quote:
It is easily demonstrable that humans, as part of the natural word, are degrading it.


Then offered examples and concluded:
Quote:
All of these things negatively impact the Earths ecology and in most countries


First, if human are 'degrading' nature, then we can simply assume that such degradation is part of 'nature' itself. Like a virus degrades and destroys its very environment. You still seem to fall prey to the false dichotomy between 'human beings' and 'nature'. 'Nature' is simply the environment of human beings, and can be nothing other conceptually. Defining nature in abstract of the human as the subject of such a definition is impossible. Objectivity doesn't lend any credence in this case.

Thus, what you mean by 'environmental degradation' is, more precisely, the degradation of the HUMAN ENVIRONMENT - and to this point I will concede. I will not concede, however, that bourgeois policies of deindustrialization and genocide are the solution. Climate Change is happening, I agree. Whether or not it is caused by humans is a non-issue. What is also a non-issue is the reversability of such a shift. All human being can due, through the application of human principles and ideas of social organization is mitigate the effects this can have on crop-growing and living space. If climate change will reverse climate patterns and make some areas of the world crash in terms of per area productivity (esp of food) - then the object of humans is making sure that we can still feed ourselves if such a situation were to occur.
Asking us to reduce per capita productivity by switching over to bogus 'wind power' and 'solar power' is simply a policy of deindustrialization and implicit genocide. We cannot sustain population on this planet without coal, oil and nuclear energy. We should be developing massive amounts of nuclear energy and investing in efficient communication and transportation infrastructure in the colonial world so that human beings can survive is there is a drastic shift in climate patterns.

Quote:
I would ague that environmentalism isn't a bourgeois ideology. In most instances, the bourgeoisie is resisting measures to protect the environment because they know it will negatively impact their profits. I believe it is a weapon with which we can attack capitalists.


Also false. Environmentalism receives the greatest contributions from industrial capital. Also, it is the best way to increase profits and shift burdens of 'underconsumption' to the working class. It is also a mean by which we can keep the per capita industrial capacity of third world nations at a minimum in order to control their population.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 26 Feb 2009, 00:29
I don't buy your argument that I'm falling prey to a false dichotomy. You have failed to demonstrate to me satisfactorily exactly how I have.

Quote:
Thus, what you mean by 'environmental degradation' is, more precisely, the degradation of the HUMAN ENVIRONMENT - and to this point I will concede.


I disagree with your statement that there is a "Human environment" at all. The environment (capable of supporting life) existed long before Humans evolved and it will continue to exist if we become extinct. For the duration of us existing as a species, we are a part of it and we are not separate from it, but unlike most other species, we do have the ability (through technology) to control it up to a point. Degrading it may be part of nature itself and I'd say that's a fair enough argument, but with our ability to control it, we can change that. If doing so will improve living conditions in the long run, we should.

Quote:
I will not concede, however, that bourgeois policies of deindustrialization and genocide are the solution.


Only foolish Green groups would think up such policies. With the introduction of environmentally friendly technologies, industrialisation could actually increase. The problem the bourgeoisie poses here is in the fact that the economic exploitation of the third world is preventing any industrialisation to increase at all. It is not in their class interests. "keeping green" or whatever may be used as an excuse (one that I've never seen from Capitalists) but it is just a thin veil.

Quote:
Asking us to reduce per capita productivity by switching over to bogus 'wind power' and 'solar power' is simply a policy of deindustrialization and implicit genocide.


The are only bogus for the time being because they are technologies which are not yet ready to implemented on a wide scale (ie cheaply and with an efficient output). The same thing applies to the likes of hydrogen cars. More resources need to be allocated to scientific research in order to change this. I agree with using widespread nuclear power as a short term measure, but we are going to have to move away from coal and oil related technologies sooner rather than later. Assuming anthropogenic climate change is taking place (I don't want to assume it isn't and take the risk of being wrong) the emissions related to these would continue to make the situation worse. I wouldn't expect the Third world to be moving away from them first, because of their level of development. It's the Developed world that is causing most of the problem, so the ball is in our court.

Quote:
Also false. Environmentalism receives the greatest contributions from industrial capital.


I think that depends on how you define environmentalism. Evidence?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron