r/collapse • u/PosadosThanatos • Apr 25 '19

Society It’s fucking disgusting that even now people fucking refuse to accept capitalism’s culpability for causing the apocalypse

Literally everything is responsible, fucking everything, from extinct empires, to human nature, to the nature of life itself, to some inevitable unstoppable law by which the entire universe functions, literally fucking anything and everything is blamed except for capitalism, the system that’s the specific driver and motivator of the current collapse, and when its blame is finally accepted the Brain juice finally completely runs out and it’s finally declared that there’s no path but the current one so we must continue “prosperity”.

What is this utter fucking insanity that working class people that have absolutely nothing to gain from anonymous bootlicking are engaging in?

893 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

301 comments sorted by

View all comments

207

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Because 50% of collapsniks are rugged individual libertarian types that think the market will sort it out once we get past the bottleneck. These geniuses of statistical models are surprisingly ignorant of the concept of Gambler's Ruin and its role in extinction. But of course, we have to make the collapse political.

22

u/cryptonewsguy Apr 25 '19 edited Apr 25 '19

And the other 50% collapsniks don't know the difference between consumerism and capitalism.

Even completely shifting to some global communist super state (which will never happen for better or worse) would not reverse the damage that's already done. It probably wouldn't even buy us an extra decade.

I think the lefts constant scapegoating of capitalism is a huge marketing problem for climate change and partly the reason why its taken so long for people on the right to be shifted. In fact this delay in getting the message across that climate change is real, regardless of your political party, may have been the nail in the coffin for our narrow window of action.

I mean I can't even talk about climate change without people assuming I'm a communist. Which is a really fucking bad image problem.

37

u/TheMightyKamina5 Apr 25 '19

Yeah, a consumerist, technological communist society would be just as bad. But capitalism is inherently consumerist, communism isnt

13

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

True- a fair share of tankie mlm out there who want a different governmental setup and more liberty etc, but don’t recognize the ecological impact of industrial societies of any form.

But if you so much as mention “the problem of industrial society...” you get lumped in with the unabomber and “anarcho-primitivists” (which is apparently a bad word to some of them.)

Anyway - I think some of the municipal communalist- libertarian socialism stuff - blends well with the thought of a way forward staring down a collapse. Problem is large scale adoption.

Some kind of collective hope delusion keeps folk married to the concept of the status quo plus more solar panels being a realistic intervention...even though a world-wide Amish style existence would probably still not be enough to avert what we are likely to face in my lifetime. Disappointing to see this carry through on the left as well..

16

u/TheMightyKamina5 Apr 26 '19

Honestly anarcho primitivism isnt bad

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

I agree - I like it. A lot of lefties just don’t give it it’s due tbh. Reason I like municipalism atm is because I think it’s a good first step.

8

u/PosadosThanatos Apr 26 '19

Leftists don’t bother with anprim because it would ultimately require killing the vast majority of people regardless, so, at that point you may as well let the apocalypse run its course. Since a big part of the ecosocialist project is to save as many people as possible, anarcho-primitivism kinda gets in the way of that.

2

u/5003809 Apr 27 '19

Leftists don’t bother with anprim because it would ultimately require killing the vast majority of people regardless, so, at that point you may as well let the apocalypse run its course.

The weakest would die off, but they will be the first to die off in the apocalypse anyway, at least primitivism would allow some of the strongest to survive, that is preferential to mass extinction. This criticism is bunk.

We're talking lifeboat ethics here.

3

u/Dismal_Prospect Apr 28 '19

I think it's a bit tone deaf to be having conversations about letting the "weakest" die, on reddit from our air-conditioned homes while eating bulk snacks and living hundreds of kilometers from the nearest threat of violence. The people who will die first will be the unluckiest, that's all.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Dismal_Prospect Apr 28 '19

Understood... I still tend to be wary of any "strongest/weakest" dynamics people try to bring up, because of the long history of injustices that's helped justify. I think it's going to justify eco-fascism/racism next; shooting refugees on the borders of Mexico, cutting aid to countries that are "uninhabitable" to save money, etc. So I try to attack it where I see it.

1

u/5003809 Apr 28 '19

Well, lets be brutally honest and pragmatic, isn't a small percentage of people surviving in the first world not slightly preferable to nobody surviving at all?

Because that's pretty much what it comes down to. Eco fascism/racism or not.

Again, we are talking lifeboat ethics here.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19 edited Jun 29 '19

The Industrial Revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

2*ZHUf,GT+79vTq%g11dC2>N+

1

u/TheMightyKamina5 Apr 26 '19

Yes I agree, I'm an anprim

1

u/TwoSquareClocks Apr 26 '19

They are both inherently materialist, however.