I think pretty much all socialists are ecological at the same time these days, so I'm not sure what identifying yourself as a degrowth communist adds, kinda like calling yourself a pro-LGBTQIA+ communist or an anticapitalist communist. Lemmy.ml is more than fine for you, I'd say, many will probably have similar issues with specifically aligning with degrowth as I did though.
You keep claiming that there are "physical limits," which isn't a magic spell. Of course there are physical limits, I'm not unaware of it. The problem with degrowth is that in an effort to not spend resources on improving efficiency and developing in a green direction, it counterintuitively costs more to the environment to try to keep present level technology and produce less. You inevitably end up in a Malthusian direction, turning to eco-fascism.
Yes, production of useless waste like fast fashion can and should end. Yes, much of what we produce is wasted and this must be eliminated. This is where I can align with degrowth. However, the idea that we need to work smaller and smaller rather than larger and more efficiently is where the math loses out for Degrowth.
Here's a handy example. For socialists, replacing cars with solar powered trains dramatically reduces emissions while improving transport and lowering resource cost. Degrowth doesn't take this position, though. Degrowth tries to lower present output without building onto newer. This is the trap. We can all agree on cutting out the bullshit, but the answer isn't to try to strip back what we already do.
This is why degrowth leads to ecofascism. With present output and methods, we are unsustainable headed to disaster. People do not want to lower their lifestyles significantly, yet for degrowth to work it needs a population collapse. This leads to Malthusian politics and a desire to eliminate large portions of humanity to live current lifestyles in a more sustainable manner.
The problem is, that doesn't even work. Killing off huge portions of humanity would still lead to collapse at present technology, without advancing it. People will inevitably advance, and grow again, and this time the world will well and truly end for Humanity.
I do agree that I'm more optimistic, but I also believe I am more realistic.
I've already answered, though. Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine's arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.
I'm aware that advancements also elevate living standards. However, your conception of this necessitating destruction of the environment is incorrect, and this is not at all the same as capitalism's incessant drive towards accumulation. Degrowth as a focus is the wrong approach, advanced technology like developed rail systems actually save the environment more than car-centric infrastructure. We have to advance further to protect the environment, and combine that with climate-focuses approaches, not slow our advancement and stick with small-scale production, which is less environmentally efficient.
Degrowth is a trap. Environmentalist socialism is necessary, and is the actual way to protect and preserve the environment. Socialism will end fast fashion, incessant trinket production, and more that currently only serve to accelerate capital accumulation, while advancing technology that is more environmentally efficient.
It's really as simple as this.
The "need motive" is not what you think it is. There is not an imperitive to endlessly expand. I am not treating scientific planning like it can bypass thermodynamics, that is a strawman. Profit doesn't just change distribution, it changes production, because profit needs more sales. This creates new demand that then is fulfilled, this is the basics of why socialist ecology is necessary.
Again, the "need motive" does not have the same endless feedback loop that the profit motive does.
How so? The US Empire is fascist.
The reason for overproduction is because the profit motive requires the sale of as many commodities as possible. Socialism essentially means we can scientifically plan production and distribution, meaning we aren't constrained by this any longer. As for the bits you are talking about like fast fashion, planned obsolescence, and the military industrial complex, we aren't at odds here, these are products of capitalism and the profit motive.
Advancement is not a "culture." It is a historical process. You are confusing the problems of capitalism to be problems of culture, and not material conditions, which leads to errors in judgment. All environmentalism going forward requires socialism as a basis, which will end overconsumption because the base of overconsumption is overproduction for sale of commodities.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
As for the Sino-Soviet split, it's a tragedy, and was avoidable.
I'd read more Russian authors if more were translated into English. Sadly, it's hard to come by, and for the purposes of debunking anticommunist claims, Statesian authors tend to make westerners less skeptical.
As for the person I am replying to, it's really unimportant. Just a western anticommunist.
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.
I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect.
As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt.
Cowbee
0 post score0 comment score









I quite literally answered it in the same comment you're replying to:
War is not "take XYZ land and then you've got it," it's a battle between two powers. Even if your goal is to annex certain territory, in this case the four Oblasts that Russia has made clear it intends in taking, taking land outside of the four Oblasts weakens Ukraine's ability to launch counteroffensives and stage troops. It does not mean Russia will keep every bit of land they take. Further, it also gives Russia leverage in treaties.
This is incredibly simple and I'm astounded that you're making me repeat this in ever-simpler terms.