this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
129 points (99.2% liked)
Communism
2723 readers
123 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anti-communist environmentalism is just imperialism and commodity fetishization with green wrapping paper.
The ending of fossil fuel energy and factory farming cannot come about under capitalism. It is baked into Communism.
You’ve had a few hundred years and a few attempts but even your allies in the comments can only offer that it’s being pledged and that there’s plans, eventually, maybe, we’re working on it. You can defend Chinese methods against a lot of western criticism, but seriously, the end of factory farming? They’re making no moves to address how they feed their people.
I didn't say anything about China.
But since you brought them up: hey're certainly now the cutting edge on renewable energy and smart grid tech. Agriculture emissions are still second place behind fossil fuel emissions, so for what my opinion is worth (not much) they're following the right course by focusing on that first. But don't be surprised if the next big innovation in reducing agriculture emissions comes out of an AES country. They're certainly far more likely to devote massive resources to the problem than anywhere in the West.
You’re in an entire thread about China, and once again, miss the point I made earlier. China’s concern is the emissions because those negatively affect the human population, which is very inline with ML attitudes about environmentalism. What’s the living conditions of the cows, chickens, swine, and dogs in those farms?
Neither the OP nor any of the comments in the chain I replied to mentioned China.
I didn't see a point, just more evidence that you can't tell the difference between capitalist commodity fetishism and environmentalism.
Oh, it’s been hammered back at me that the ML approach to environmentalism is that it’s purpose is to protect the environment for the sake its use to the people, that protecting it at the expense of whatever progress is deemed necessary is to deny humanity and therefore radical and unjust. My argument would be that, whether it’s a capitalist society or a socialist one, there’s a lot of commodities that don’t really warrant environmental harm just because humans would prefer to have it. Chinese reforms created a middle class, and just like in the west, a middle class becomes a consumer class. Both end up generating more one time use waste, both consume built to be obsolete technology, both consume more meat. At some point it ceases to be elevation from poverty to commodity fetishism. So while I can wish and hope all I want that people would consume ethically, mindfully, and with a goal of harm reduction, at some point I would simply say “fuck off, earth first” and deny my fellow humans access to whatever it is they are seeking.
That's idealistic, though. Your fellow humans want the things they prefer and you have to contend with that.
You can try to deny your fellow humans access, but they'll fight you to the death for it. Unless your plan is human extermination, you're going to have to work with humans. That means framing environmentalism in their terms, for their interests.
And that is the moral conundrum. You are correct, there comes points where you do have to draw a hard line and do what must be done to protect nature, because the human capacity to destroy it and other living things has transcended nature’s ability to protect itself and all that stands between it’s exploitation by one set of tool wielding apes is a group of other tool wielding apes.
That’s a pretty extreme scenario. My critique of both ML and the China method is that it doesn’t contain, at its core, modern environmental philosophy. Not suprising, it was not a concern for the writers at the time. China’s revolution came after it had time to observe what capitalism and the rise of a middle class had done in the west, but it still chose to follow many of the same methods to speed run it’s growth, the creation of a middle class, and now has many of the same issues the west does when it comes to the consumerism of a middle class (and the gross excesses of a wealth class, whose singular habits can make the average annual footprint of thousands look like a drop in the ocean). I’d also point out that China’s economy is based on selling a lot of useless crap to western markets. It’s supply and demand, and it would appear that appealing to the nature of humans to not be wasteful is… futile? Our planet is changing rapidly but we are nowhere near hitting the point where the majority of humans will willingly limit their consumption for the greater good. There seems to be a strong belief in “consume now, pay whatever consequences later.
And I see that mentality strongly in China’s revolution. It didn’t happen in a bubble, they knew that there would be a price to pay but anthropocentrism is fundamental to ML. China got what it wanted, and now plays catch-up with environmentalism, just like the west. My struggle with trying to critique devotion to ML or the Chinese method often reaches an impasse because nobody has developed a popular environmental minded update and will continually point to the idea that protecting it for human use is good enough and that human progression is outweighed by environmental concerns. I disagree, humanity can progress but that doesn’t mean it always gets what it wants or thinks progress looks like.
I’m concerned that the rise of popular adoption of ML thought is so dismissive of environmental concerns, which have long been only addressed by leftists. The responses out of a lot of it’s supporters are becoming increasingly anthropocentric with an acceptance that a few green initiatives and climate pledges for the future are good enough, and had a dude over on Reddit basically state he didn’t give a fuck how bad factory farming was for the animals, humans deserve cheap meat. I don’t think the world is going to go vegan, but damn dude, won’t even criticize factory farming? What the hell is happening to the left?
You aren't going to convince 8 billion people to do environmentalism for its own sake. What you're talking about is literally impossible, you can't "draw a hard line" and expect to enforce it. The only way to do environmentalism is if you do it for humans.
I'm vegan, but it wasn't animal welfare concerns that convinced me to stop eating animals. I was concerned, sure, but it was never enough. What convinced me was the fact that animal slaughter is traumatizing to the humans forced to do it for a living. Workers who slaughter for a living have higher rates of depression, anxiety, alcoholism, addiction, violent crime, and suicide. That person doesn't seem to have thought about the human impact either, and probably doesn't think much about anything at all tbh
But tying the environment back to human health and prosperity is the key to environmentalism. You have to convince humans to protect the environment for their sake. We preserve biodiversity because it ensures our biosphere doesn't collapse. We stop greenhouse gas emissions because global heating will kill humans. We stop dumping waste because it makes humans sick. That's the only thing that works. If you fail to do that, if you try to impose environmentalism on them for the environment's sake, they'll rebel.
If you drew a hard line and just forced veganism on people, they'd eat you.
Environmentalism has been trying to convince people to be concerned for their own sake for a very long time. Doing so requires self-concern as well as empathy for the rest of humanity as well as indirect empathy for the planet as a whole. Right, left, or centrist, humans show an affinity for self-indulgence, comfort, simplicity, and luxury. I’ve been undercover in slaughter houses and factory farms. A substantial portion of those in the US are staffed with leased prison labor, guys who’ve already had questionable morality regarding behavior towards fellow humans, now making a $1/hr. The non-compliant cow or chicken is now an object of frustration to vent their fury. There’s no concern for its welfare because the concept of concern does not exist. They’re pissed, the gratification of punching or kicking it is good enough. Not to mention, there’s some mean sons of bitches who enjoy the work. Psychologically healthy, no. But if you enjoy the power no amount of pointing out why that’s unhealthy is going to make them consider a career change.
It’s the same with over-consumption. The US has a massive problem with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Plenty of people are aware of this, know they’re doing it to themselves, but will kill themselves with indulgence because it’s pleasurable. Also creates a whole medical industry that can then sell cure-alls, surgery, and profiteer off human’s desire to get more by doing less. Hell, I’m smoking a cigarette while typing this. I’m well aware of the dangers, just like I’m aware I drink more than I should.
I do not believe there’s a way to convince people to act in their own best interest, much less broader interests that they can see no direct benefit from and would consider an imposition. On the flip side, humans are also free to do what they choose with their bodies. If someone wants to eat or drink themselves to death, I can find it tragic, sad, attempt to convince them otherwise, but when does it become my place (or the government’s) to stop them? As you pointed out, you couldn’t legislate veganism, people would just break the law like they do with illegal drugs or their own sexuality when morality legislation starts defining who two consenting adults can or cannot bang.
Environmental concerns are a slow and steady progression. Sometimes it comes from early education, and dare I say indoctrination (Captain Planet and Ferngully had a notable influence on a lot of the kids who grew up exposed to them in spite of how their parents may have lived). Sometimes it is just a hard crackdown and forbidding the use of something (DDT, CFCs, lead-based paints and gasolines). The debate on when, where, and what is worth overriding an individual’s right to choose is a tough one, as is convincing an adult that giving up something that brings them pleasure, comfort, status, or luxury is in the best interest of themselves or a greater cause, because they will often fight back or sneak around to get what they want.
Still, my main concern is that environmentalism, animal welfare, and consumerism have been topics addressed by leftists, but recently it’s become increasingly “good enough” or “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later”. If we don’t use this moment to make sure all our concerns are being addressed, we’ll end up swinging the pendulum back in favor of humans above all and the issues we’re causing environmentally will continue to exist, eventually pushing us to a point where our prosperity is compromised and nothing was gained.
And why would they do that? Because they're suffering. People will kill themselves with overeating and drugs and whatever else because they want the pain to stop and they'll accept anything that can distract them from their suffering - even for a moment.
That's why obesity and alcoholism and addiction and overdoses are things that mostly afflict the poor. They want the pain to stop.
That's why we say “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later." We have to deal with it later, it's impossible to deal with it right now. You aren't going to convince suffering people that they should deprive themselves of simple pleasures.
You have to end the suffering first. If you try to override everyone's right to choose without ending it, they'll eat you.
Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do with the middle class and wealthy who are doing all these things but not impoverished? Trump’s obese, Hegseth is drunk, and Elon’s a junkie. Suffering from moral decrepitude but definitely not impoverished. I also question the poverty of the middle class. While many live below the poverty line, many are only impoverished because they live beyond their means for the sake of possessions over their health. They may be impoverished financially but that’s a self-made situation due to poverty of character.
Speed running a rush to abolish poverty now without considering the future cost to the environment is going to be a short term pat on the back and pawns the cost off on people who don’t even exist yet. You burn through your resources like forests, overload the utilities infrastructure, over extend the available water supply, and disrupt the ecosystem because it’s more important to just get it over and done with, and you create Dust Bowls that blow all your topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico, backflow of sewage and run-off into the watershed, dry up the watershed, and build communities nobody wants to live in because as it turns out, most people don’t want to live in concrete jungles that have no natural spaces relatively close by. How about making sure the new communities have public transportation, are designed to discourage single occupancy driving and encourage walking or biking? Do we build up or do we downsize homes, fewer 2000+sqft “starter homes” that take up the entire lot, or more tiny houses with some sort of outdoor plot to encourage gardening or at least being outside.
Not everybody who is impoverished is suffering from escapist addictions, not everyone who’s an escapist addict is suffering from financial poverty. Elevating people out of poverty also won’t get every impoverished person to give up their addictions, many will continue to indulge, they’ll just have better accommodations to indulge in. And the wealthy, as well as the middle class members who think they’re wealthy like the elite but are in fact just living on credit cards, raising the impoverished out of their state and into at least the bottom rung of the middle class is going to nothing to curb their excesses and consumption. If anything, the class system is so designed to punch down there will be resentment that someone was raised to near their same level. Look at the hatred for the minimum social services we already have. We have people who rely on welfare that support candidates that promise to abolish welfare to prevent others from getting it, literally cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
China should be an example of why massive social change and speed running the creation of a middle class at the expense of the environment should not be replicated by their model. Study it, learn from it, what worked great, what has didn’t work, and what had unforeseen consequences. Otherwise you damage the planet in ways that will never heal in dozens of lifetimes, and you’re passing the next environmental impact on to other countries because you are importing basic resources to sustain your system as well as try and go green to offset the climate change and pollution you already contributed to, which again, requires importing natural resources that are not easy on the environment to extract. We’ve seen the effects of the rise of the middle class in the west and China, and are better poised to do it cleaner than either was when they did theirs. If we chose not to it’s not out of a love for humanity, because we’re clearly not concerned with the wave of humanity that has to inherit the mess.
I’d also point out that as far as we know, we are the only animals that think of suffering in the manner we do, but since we can recognize it we recognize it’s affects on other living things. Causing non-human suffering in the name of alleviating human suffering a moral hardline I cannot get on board with. We cannot eliminate suffering because it has not singular cause and some of it is self-inflicted, people can be given every opportunity to escape or be helped but will not. We at least attempt harm reduction in all our actions.