Why "Eco-Fascism" Wouldn't Be That Bad

Post Reply New Topic

1. The world isn't ruled by the 1%. The world is ruled by the 0.01%.
2. We could create more government jobs by making more industries state owned.
3. Human nature is not monolithic. Of course people are going to be selfish of they are living in an economic system that rewards selfishness.

So only the 0.01% is the bourgeois? We weren't talking about who ruled the world but rather whether a person living in the first world could be considered bourgeois almost by default. If the top 1% starts at 32k I'm not sure what else to call the top 1% or even top 5%.


They need to price their goods competitively regardless and if they have too much human overhead and voluntarily pass on automation for the sake of employing people it won't work. Better to just let the companies make less expensive goods with fewer workers and give people UBI (universal basic income); it gets the same job done without the dutiful inefficiency.


Humans did monolithically evolve from apes and as such evolved as animals of social hierarchy. Apes, wolves, lobsters, many many other animals and crustaceans, and yes - humans, all share hierarchical social structure. Greed can sometimes be a result of that but millions of years of instinctual programming isn't a result of a few hundred years of consumer capitalism. If anything it would be the other way around.

Going back to this, and I never should have skipped over it as I think it's a key part of what you're not understanding.

In a bad economy poor people aren't doing fine. They're either living paycheck to paycheck, closer to it, going into foreclosures on mortgages, getting evicted for back rent, failing to make car payments or having their vehicles go into disrepair, and in some cases doing the long-slog of paperwork to try and get government aid.

This is part of how Trump got elected - the neoliberals have been sending capital all over the world, keeping interest rates and inflation way down, western economies have been contracting, and the salary class has been throwing the wage class under the bus for the sake of keeping up their style of living. The poor actually are getting poorer and with automation looming on the horizon to permanently displace more jobs it's something of a time bomb that may need a lot more to be resolved than simply trying to make workfare through government-owned corporations.

It's one thing to say that globalism has currently unmitigated costs, or to say that we have problems with corporatism displacing capitalism, it's an entirely different thing to say that talk of economies is bourgeois gibberish.

You claim that human beings are hierarchal by nature. This is a bold claim. I believe that you have the burden of proof.

Some other animals have hierarchies? So what? Humans are different from the other animals. No other animal has a brain quite like ours. That's why some of the general rules regarding animals behavior don't apply to us.

The people of Catalonia temporarily created an anarchy during the Spanish Civil war. It only failed because it was crushed by Franco.

It really isn't a bold claim. If you've studied evolution and agree with our current understanding of the age of the earth or the rise from single-celled organisms to multi-cell, etc. onward there's nothing else for us to be than a more sophisticated/complex rendering of what we came from. If you're a young-earth creationist, believe we have Thetans in us who were thrown into volcanoes, or agree with Sitchin that the Annunaki made us you might be coming from a different place, I personally don't see any evidence that we were made out of clay by angels or genetically created by advanced aliens.

I'm not at all suggesting that tons of peer reviewed articles on this topic aren't out there, or that there isn't a whole professional field of study in academia called Evolutionary Psychology. The problem's really the other way around - you could figure this one out for yourself a lot faster with Google and you wouldn't even have to worry about whether the five or ten links I posted were stuff that I cherry-picked to cater to my own beliefs (another reason why I feel like throwing a bunch of links up is generally pointless - that's often the next shoe to drop).


I might ask then if you believe in libertarian free will? I won't go too much into that right now just that it doesn't seem to hold as a defensible position under examination.

The other problem here - I'm not sure you understand the 'why' of hierarchies. Organisms that don't go extinct have to be very good at finding food sources and either being able to defend themselves against predators or that good at procreating super-fast (think mosquitoes) that the number of predators doesn't matter. Hierarchy comes in when you have any type of group activity. It's a self-organizing phenomena based on self-interest and group-interest (ie. survival and prosperity of the pack which translates back to the individual, we had them for hunting and gathering and we have them now in politics for largely the same purposes) and the reason it's there is that the groups that didn't have the instinct to best allocate their physical resources or to put the best lobster, wolf, ape, etc. at the head of the pack either didn't survive or were assimilated into one that organized itself more optimally.

To suggest that the complexity of our brains means we don't do what other animals do seems to inject magic, if there's woo to be found the fundamentals of human group behavior is the last place I'd look for it. Central human drive for sex and procreation? Check. Social jousting for status and subsequent quality of mate? Check. High value placed on group competition? How much do pro athletes get paid and watched? Check. I think it's perfectly fair to say that we have the means to do what we've always done more humanely and compassionately based on our degree of sophistication and development but social hierarchies are self-assembling, they're part of the cost of dealing with anyone whose more powerful than you, less powerful, more intelligent, less intelligent, more expert in an area than you or less, etc. etc.. It can be a completely benign deferral to another person's strengths or expertise in one area or another or it can be something that's enforced heavy-handedly in other situations. The question's not over whether or not hierarchies are autocratic/dictatorial or not, that they self-assemble effortlessly and really based on human awareness of qualitative differences says quite a bit about how fundamental they are. They're as natural and physics-y as ions forming crystalline solids or hydrocarbons forming chains with the hydrogen on the outside and the carbon on the inside.


Seems somewhat irrelevant though. A lot of things can work well on small scales in the absence of acute crisis. It sounds like they didn't hold of Franco militarily, that could be neither here nor there based on the differences in numbers but you'd have to know something about how well anarchists could organize responses to famines, floods, foreign invasion, enforce quality of education, medical care, etc.. I really wasn't looking to talk at length about anarchism tonight, I've got nothing against talking about it because if anything has worked for any meaningful length of time it would be fascinating to figure out why. Most of the world doesn't go for pure anarchism for lack of efficiency, vulnerability, etc.. and if it's only a partial anarchism it's probably better represented or described with a different label.

[url]file:///C:/Users/Stuart/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/0MW8UXWD/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf[/url]

I'm not sure if that link will work.

If it doesn't, try searching for "Egalitarian Societies by James Woodburn".

It seems that cavemen were actually decent blokes.

I don't think that Rousseau was entirely right, but I think that Hobbes was very wrong.

Something cannot end unless it has already begun. If you want to "end global warming", then just stop believing in it. You will have one less non-issue to be worried about.

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm not calling you a Nazi, but they were environmentalists and fascists.

Who are we saving this Living Space for, in particular?

People do exercise animal dominance, by intimidating others, and also, under voluntarism. In my niche interests, I am listened-to. People trust me and do what I say, unquestioningly, when they may just as well have had a difference in opinion. Maybe, they would have something useful to contribute, and make me a better person. There is such a thing as authority. It's usually me, but it happens spontaneously.

This is a consideration, when rationing useful resources.

Some Non-Issues That You Shouldn't be Worried About:

- bigotry against rich people
- anti-white racism
- communism
- environmental extremism
- "Satanic ritual abuse"

Another decent essay refuting the idea of social Darwinism is this Mutual Aid A Factor Of Evolution . My own current ideological view in regard to environmentalism is that of eco-socialism , by the way .

I don't think anyone in their right mind can say that mutual aid isn't happening in nature as well. To hunt in a pack is mutual aid. To protect other members of a tribe against a predator or invader is mutual aid. Most of the time, historically, it stayed within social units and I'm thinking on the occasions that it transcended social units were the time when the 'other' showed behaviors that were strongly nostalgic to a member of one's own tribe.

We're actually trying a project at this time that's never been done before - ie. a global liberal society, the means by which we've been trying to make that happen are of questionable sustainability and there's been a backlash against the kind of neoliberalism that's been spearheading it - both from the underclasses in the developed world who've been losing their jobs and resorting to right and left-wing populist candidates, and as well the conservative muslim world where, we have to put it bluntly, liberal democracy is about as satanic as you can get in the light of their traditions. I really do hope that we can one day get to global world piece, just that I really doubt we'll see anything coalesce on the first try. We're probably looking at something like a few thousand more years of trying to bringing the whole planet under humanitarian conditions to make humanitarian behavior and psychology possible.