Why this topic is here.

[K-Dog]

A short one minute clip from this longer video starting at 30:27

[K-Dog]

This video belongs here.  4 sure.

The capitalist mode of production is toast.

John Bellamy Foster a Professor of Sociology and the Editor of Monthly Review Magazine is introduced.

The Monthly Review Magazine looks interesting.  But back to the video.  The capitalist mode of production can't endure.  Oil runs out.  The video admits it. 

The widespread recognition of Karl Marx as a leading, classical contributor to ecological thought is a fairly recent historical occurrence.  The revival of Marx's ecology since the 1960's, and especially since the 1990s, occurred in a number of stages.

The dominant interpretation on the left up through the 1980s faulted Marx for his supposedly instrumentalist, 'Promethean', conception of nature and alleged lack of ecological sensibility.

This view resulted in what has come to be known as 'first stage ecosocialism', characterized by the grafting of Green thought onto Marxism (or in some cases Marxism onto Green thought) based on the presumption that Marx's entire critique was ecologically flawed.

- John Bellamy Foster, The Marx Revival: key Concepts and New Interpretations (2020)

From the video.  And more from the video.

Even an entire society, a nation or all simultaneously existing societies taken together , are not owners of the earth, they are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations

- Karl Marx, Capital Volume II (1894)

28 minutes in Seattle is Mentioned.  I think I apprehend a local accent.

37 minutes in the video documents the destruction of the socialist ecological ethic by Stalin.

Closing the video the authors put in a tribute.  A short video from VHS days of Murray Bookchin  saying he won't live to see it, but we are doomed..  People living under domes on a desert planet.  A command economy, fuckedtopia.

I looked Bookchin up.  This from Wikipoopaea

Murray Bookchin's book about humanity's collision course with the natural world, Our Synthetic Environment, was published six months before Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.[29]

Bookchin rejected Barry Commoner's belief that the environmental crisis could be traced to technological choices, Paul Ehrlich's views that it could be traced to overpopulation, or the even more pessimistic view that traces this crisis to human nature. Rather, Bookchin felt that our environmental predicament is the result of the cancerous logic of capitalism, a system aimed at maximizing profit instead of enriching human lives: "By the very logic of its grow-or-die imperative, capitalism may well be producing ecological crises that gravely imperil the integrity of life on this planet."

Post-Scarcity Anarchism', Murray Bookchin (1971) – A Book in Five Minutes

[K-Dog]

When the people of this country realize how few solutions the right wing has you will see an appreciation that maybe we ought to try the left.

The crucial question is whether the left will be courageous enough to say what's going on and to offer a real alternative.

Originally the Left was not an evil Satan.  It was about Working People.  Working People taking control of the means of production to stop exploitation. 

In America the Right successfully perverted the meaning of Left to be the support of rights of every kind.  In particular ridiculous ones that would pervert basic family values, and which are offensive to all but the perverted.

America's belief of what the Left is about, is wrong.  The Left because of its commitment to stop exploitation of all kinds, does support minority movements and causes, that many people may not like.  This support, meaning the right of all people to demand equal rights and treatment under the law and such, a fair shake in life.  Has been perverted by the Right to mean full support of every looney-tune lifestyle one can think of, and some that you have not thought of.

It is time to provide clarity.  The Left is about stopping exploitation, and all about giving people control of their own lives.  That is it, that is all.

The exact opposite of what the Right has re-defined the Left to be in America.  If the Left is going to be courageous enough to say what's going on, the Left has to remember what it was about to begin with.

Approval of a fringe cause is no more than calling out a case of exploitation.  It is not advocacy of the fringe.  That is a different issue.

The Left is actually about things being fair.

[RE]

Originally the Left was not an evil Satan.  It was about Working People.  Working People taking control of the means of production to stop exploitation. 

In America the Right successfully perverted the meaning of Left to be the support of rights of every kind.  In particular ridiculous ones that would pervert basic family values, and which are offensive to all but the perverted.

Although the Left definitely suffered by identification with some unpopular social ideals and morality, IMHO the main reason it has failed to gain traction in the FSoA is that the Right has been very successful with 2 things:

1- Perpetuating economic and political mythology

2- Equating Communism with Totalitarianism.

The great Amerikan Lie is that everyone has an equal shot at getting rich, and that you can get rich without it being at somebody else's expense.  Every person who came here wanted to believe that if they just worked hard and followed the rules they would get a fair shake and a fair share of the American dream.  There's nothing wrong with being rich goes the mythology, it's the just reward for being smart and working hard and saving your money.  Every kid has the chance for an equal education and equal opportunity to get any job, even to be President.

Just about none of this mythology is really true, but most people believe it if they came from the top half of the society.  The only people really aware just how skewed opportunity and education is are from the lowest class, and their complaints are seen as sour grapes.

The worst promoters gf the myths are not the people born rich, but the ones who DID live the American Dream and yanked themselves out of poverty by one means or another.  There's always a few success stories in every generation, and that's all the media needs to perpetuate the myths.

Collective action has always been denigrated in favor of rugged individualism, the Entrepreneur raised up as Hero and the Union projected as Evil.  Acting together to Strike is unfair, but an owner closing a factory to move it to cheap labor  in Mexico is rightful good bizness practice.  Union leaders are "corrupt "Bosses".  Bankers are law abiding "CEOs".

The early years of Chinese Communists all wearing the same Black Pajamas and Russians all in drab gray military outfits played on Amerikans deepest fears  of all being relegated to poverty, and given that neither the USSR or China was very successful economicaally in the post war years it was easy to play on these fears.  As long as the grocery stores here were full and the Ruskies were standing in line for bread, it was easy to convince people Capitalism was superior to Communism economically.

All of that growth came at a price though, which we are only now learning about.  There's no free lunch, and by pulling future production forward with debt, the illusion could be maintained that the incresing standard of living didn't have a pricetag.  It did, of course.

The demonization of the left in the FSoA has been so successful for the last century that no real left politics even exist here at all, except in intellectual circles, and intellectual thought is another thing successfully propagandized against by the right.  This has been so successful that generally the stupider the politician the more successful, from either party.

As a result of this history, it's hard to see where new leadership will come from here, and we'll only see real change once the right has so thoroughly destroyed the country there's almost nothing left to save.  If they elect Trumpovetsky again, that won't take long.

RE

[K-Dog]

The worst promoters gf the myths are not the people born rich, but the ones who DID live the American Dream and yanked themselves out of poverty by one means or another.  There's always a few success stories in every generation, and that's all the media needs to perpetuate the myths.

This is interesting. RE and I were talking on the phone recently.  In my case the American dream has worked out in many ways.  I get nearly a full boat of social security, and now that we have some real interest rates instead of a ridiculous 0.05%, my 401 K gets bigger every day.  I could easily be a cheerleader for the system.

I could claim all the good breaks I have had in life were the result of my own efforts and all the bad ones too.  Why not?  I am what is called a success.  The wolf of debt does not now howl at my door.  I hear him in the distance, but he is far away.

RE said 'right now the system is treating you well'.

Right now it is, and I am getting a share of the plunder of generations yet unborn.  But I am not a cheerleader for 'the system'.

Our system leaves blood on the floor. 

Success in America depends on an unfair distribution of stuff, and while in my particular case my assets can all be traced back to 'work', I am the exception that proves the rule. 

There were two jobs in my life where I made 'the big bucks'.  Big bucks being twice or more the average wage of Americans.  When I had those jobs I was a money saving fool.  Nothing in our family lifestyle changed at all!  No extra expenses or trips.  Those two jobs gave me enough income to buy 'success', and if I had no soul I would be a MAGA Republican right now.

As proof of this claim, the reputation service lists me as a Republican.  Their software no doubt assigning me political membership based on my housing.  My politics which you here all know, are closer to Noam Chomsky than anyone else I know.  And these fuckers want money to correct the issue.  I will piss on their shoe first.

Cursed with a little more than MAGA intelligence, and possessing a soul. I choose to pay attention to the reality.  My success is a matter of being paid extra gravy that other people did not get at certain times in my life and not spending the cash.

I was fully qualified for both the big buck jobs, and I was the right hire for them.  I was qualified and my employers were happy with my work.  These employers also had enough money to pay me a premium that other people working for other employers could not get.  (Premium - The high end of the going rate.)

Other jobs I had in my life did not pay the big bucks.  A few of them should have, but our 'system' considers salary history in addition to qualifications and experience.  I was paid at the 'low end of the going rate' for a long time.  Saving money in those jobs was next to impossible.

Responsibility and effort are ingredients to success.  That is the way of the world, and if you don't think so you believe in magic and can go fuck yourself.

But success in America depends on somehow getting an unfair portion of the economic pie.  Responsibility and effort do not guarantee success, and are not necessary ingredients for it.  (Success being defined in terms of wealth, for me it is more complicated as you can tell from my disdain of magic).

Working for me has been like being a player in a casino.

Qualifications and good work being necessary in all the employment games I played, the fact is, some paid off and some did not.



I walk out as a winner.  My luck could have been different.  For the same work.

The worst promoters gf the myths are not the people born rich

I have known enough rich people to know that many of them fully understand and embrace unfairness.  It is the secret to their success, so they both know it, and they are fine with it.  Your statement is about cultural hegemony, those who force compliance and do the brainwashing.  Middlemen parasites who do the dirty work without even knowing what they are doing.  Priests teachers and such.  Israel has a right to exist don't you know.  These people are effective promoters of group-think.  The rich could not be rich without them.  That is for sure. 

But I'll say they are not the worst because their ignorance gives them a pass at being the worst.

[RE]

The issue I always found a problem was that it seemed to me that wealth had little to do with how hard you worked,  The richest people seemed to do the least work.

I couldn't understand why a baseball player should make $millons$?  Just because he can throw a ball really fast or hit it with a bat this is worth $10M/year? A basketball player can dunk a ball and get rich because he's 7' tall?  That doesn't even take talent, just growth hormone.  A girl gets $10K/hr for a photo shoot?  She was born with good looks. Lucky for her.

True in the brain department also.  Do good in school, you can get into med school.  Graduate, you get $100K to start (1980s).  Lucky you, you were born smart.  What about all the rest of the kids in my 4th grade class?  Most of them were dumb as rocks.  They should be poor because they aren't as smart as me?  I couldn't even justify making a lot of money for MYSELF!  lol.  That was 1/2 the reason I quit banking.  The other half was I hated the suit and the people I worked with.

I remember finding out why Bob Alpblanap was a rich contributor to Richard Nixon's campaign.  He invented the little valve that goes on the top of spray can bottles.  The guy has a brainstorm one night and never has to work again a day in his life?  A rock star gets rich because he plays a mean guitar.  HTF is that hard work?  I guess it's hard work to keep your nose stuffed with coke and fuck groupies between concert dates.

People born rich stayed rich just by loaning money to poor people, then when they couldn't pay back the loan stripping them of all their assets.  How is that hard work?  They were lucky to be born rich.

All the people I ever knew who really worked hard were poor.  Truck drivers, construction workers, waitresses etc.  Getting rich was mainly about being lucky enough to have some kind of talent or ability in some area that you could get somebody to pay you a lot of money to do it.  Athletic people could get rich playing sports, hot looking people could get rich as actors, smart people could get rich as bankers, kids could get rich having rich parents.  It had little to do with work and a lot to do with luck.

RE

[K-Dog]

The issue I always found a problem was that it seemed to me that wealth had little to do with how hard you worked,  The richest people seemed to do the least work.

I remember finding out why Bob Alpblanap was a rich contributor to Richard Nixon's campaign.  He invented the little valve that goes on the top of spray can bottles.  The guy has a brainstorm one night and never has to work again a day in his life?  A rock star gets rich because he plays a mean guitar.  HTF is that hard work?  I guess it's hard work to keep your nose stuffed with coke and fuck groupies between concert dates.

People born rich stayed rich just by loaning money to poor people, then when they couldn't pay back the loan stripping them of all their assets.  How is that hard work?  They were lucky to be born rich.

RE

I actually don't want 'money for nothin' and 'chicks for free' is a pipe dream in any reality.  But a great tune it is!  Love the lyrics and worth the full eight minutes.

Contentment comes not so much from great wealth as from few wants.

[RE]

Contentment comes not so much from great wealth as from few wants.

...and money can't buy happiness. 

I wasn't concerned with who was more content, only with who made more money and whether hard work was an important factor.  I concluded that it wasn't.

RE

[K-Dog]

Contentment comes not so much from great wealth as from few wants.

...and money can't buy happiness. 

I wasn't concerned with who was more content, only with who made more money and whether hard work was an important factor.  I concluded that it wasn't.

RE

And you are 100% wrong.  Factory owners can and do watch hard work every day.  And it does not bother them one bit.  Hard work is fun to watch, so hard work IS an important factor.

People who are not hard workers do not long survive the factory floor.  They are not amusing enough.

[RE]

And you are 100% wrong.

No, I am 100% right.  Do any of those hard working factory workers get rich?  No.   Does the factory owner who watches the hard work get rich?  Yes.  Therefore, doing hard work does not get you rich, watching hard work done by others gets you rich.

RE

[K-Dog]

And you are 100% wrong.

No, I am 100% right.  Do any of those hard working factory workers get rich?  No.  Does the factory owner who watches the hard work get rich?  Yes.  Therefore, doing hard work does not get you rich, watching hard work done by others gets you rich.

RE

Marx distinguishes between two stages: socialism where scarcity is still present and where equal rules will be applied to unequal people (those who work hard, are smarter or luckier will earn more), and the highest stage of development, under communism, when, as the famous formula says, "everybody will contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs".

Communism cannot be realized, but it remains the goal.  I am a socialist.

And before anybody get their undies in a bunch about '(those who work hard, are smarter or luckier will earn more)' as RE points out.  The rules we have are ANYTHING BUT EQUAL!  and the extreme between those  (those who work hard, are smarter or luckier will earn more) can get down to a reasonable ratio like three to 1 in a more just system.

Imagine a world where the spread of income was three to one instead of a million to one AS IT IS NOW.  It would be a world next to paradise.   And all dogs would eat.  Doctors get the good horses.

[RE]

the extreme between those  (those who work hard, are smarter or luckier will earn more) can get down to a reasonable ratio like three to 1 in a more just system.

As long as the society uses money, you'll end up with the big inequities.  That's why I favor societies that didn't use money, aka H-Gs.  All the teepees are about the same, all the clothes are utilitarian except some ceremonial clothes, everybody gets a bow & arrow and knife and then if you are artistic maybe you make carvings or industrious you make tools or fast you run after antelope.  You get an old horse when you're big enough to ride and a better one when you can catch it and train it.  That's enough for me.

RE

[K-Dog]

the extreme between those  (those who work hard, are smarter or luckier will earn more) can get down to a reasonable ratio like three to 1 in a more just system.

As long as the society uses money, you'll end up with the big inequities.  That's why I favor societies that didn't use money, aka H-Gs.  All the teepees are about the same, all the clothes are utilitarian except some ceremonial clothes, everybody gets a bow & arrow and knife and then if you are artistic maybe you make carvings or industrious you make tools or fast you run after antelope.  You get an old horse when you're big enough to ride and a better one when you can catch it and train it.  That's enough for me.

RE

Money can also keep people from cheating.  If you don't have enough you can't take more shit from the commons than what is fair.  In a planned economy you need money for bookkeeping.  Not everybody has a work ethic and money motivates.

[K-Dog]

Green Capitalism Is A Con

That is the new guest post and all you have to do to read it is click on the globe up top.

AND members here can comment under the article like they can comment in Dogchat.

[K-Dog]

The Eco is redundant.

The granola eating vegans narrating the video are offensive for a few reasons.

The usual mistake of the smart thinking everyone else is smart is made.  They pontificate a utopian vision which is sure to piss many off.  But they also express genuine Marxist thought.  So.

They toke a bit of woke.

But I will give it 7.5 on a scale of ten.