No.1776026
>>1776023Obviously based, the future will be red and green
No.1776085
You need a working biosphere in order to have a society, OP.
No.1776681
Ecosocialism is just socialism. in order to do ecology correctly, capitalism must end. in order for capitalism to end, we must have socialism. ergo socialism will bring "ecosocialism"
No.1776883
>>1776023>I personally don't like that it drives to the forefront the ecological crisis rather than the class struggle.The ecosystem and class struggle are inextricably linked, it is capitalist exploitation that further drives over-exploitation of the ecosystem that also ruins the lives of the proletariat as the environment degrades and lowers quality of life.
Just think of having clean, breathable air. Decades ago before China really clamped down (and ramped up) its efforts at clean energy, certain cities really were blanketed in smoke, same as certain cities in the US before EPA came along and mandated pollution regulations. In South-East Asia, every now and then Indonesia does its slash and burn land clearing bullshit and turns the region into a smog filled shithole.
I know Vijay Prashad went off a few years ago about western chauvinism regarding the environment, but a lot of development really is quite gnarly and nasty, we can only be glad that China was able to prevent the worse excesses of its own development from making things worse, the trick will now be to apply this to the rest of the developing world to limit the inevitable damage.
No.1777086
>>1776023>environment over workerskilling the planet that birthed it is the last paradox of capitalism and may be the backstop that catches it.
>liberal solutionsdon't work. no climate model supports infrastructure modernisation as a panacea. there will need to be degrowth on a global scale and liberal capitalism can't deliver it.
I don't know that ecosocialist theory will succeed and let us evade the coming crisis, but we're going to see more than a billion people displaced, mostly from poor countries on the periphery. this will drive water crises, border crises, refugee crises, agricultural collapses, and a form of anti refugee western fascism that will make trump and orban look tame in comparison. Build a socialist ecology and integrate it into your language and praxis or get left behind.
No.1777098
I think socialists abandoning ecological language and labels is a huge mistake because you just leave it to the extinctionist eco-facists, the climate austeritist liberals or the sinophonic imperialists and smother another avenue for radicalization, especially among young people.
No.1777150
Great Transformation of Nature
No.1777161
>>1776023I don't mind whatever they call whatever. Queer socialism, black socialism, anti colonial socialism, if they understand theory then they'll know the only thing that matters is that nothing is more important than actually getting hold of the power to change things.
There's nothing outside of the proletariat gaining power for itself. It's really that simple.
No.1779091
The end utopian result of Communism would also lend itself to the same aspirations ecosocialists want. Usage of major pollutors like private jets, coal plants, and other fossil fuels is because of the greed of the elite class. Not out of necessity.
China's turning green is proof of this – Beijing Blue (sky) is on the rise.
No.1779104
It can present as a tempting argument. Socialism or death and suffering from capitalism. Capitalism doesnt do enough drastic things openly in the western world as when they were using the Pinkertons to shoot strikers or something. You need something to make the threat more clear.
No.1779109
>>1779104There's still dramatic things happening in the west. It's just mostly
systemic so harder to place blame. Proles are kept in line by healthcare costs and student loans. You can shoot a Pinkerton back. You can't shoot a hospital bill.
No.1779113
Ecosocialism just like a anarchist primitivism is reactionary
No.1779133
>>1779113Ecosocialism isn't anything like primitivism
No.1779140
>>1776023> I also don't like that they're implicitly Trotskyite, but unconsciously so, making them Stalinist in practice. (that last part could just be my personal experience).what the fuck does this sentence mean
No.1779145
>>1779133A little ecology here and there doesn't hurt. Making mainly about ecology however is reactionary and anti civilization.
No.1779149
>>1779145The Earth is a closed system (except for a few things like sunlight). I don't see how it's reactionary in any way to acknowledge that and plan our societies accordingly. Especially since we know that generally speaking living in harmony with nature where possible is more mentally healthy anyway.
No.1779151
>>1779149The end goal of socialism is expanding into space not returning into the caveman days
No.1779153
>>1779151so…build out into space and leave earth's ecosystem intact
No.1779159
>>1779153They're contradictory. One aims to maximize production as a goal the other aims at slower growth. There's some that argue for a zero growth economy as a goal. You can't reach space with a 0 growth economy.
No.1779161
>>1779151>>1779159Nothing about a stateless classless society implies "infinite growth" lol, whatever the fuck that means.
No.1779162
Also,
>socialism means (thing that only makes sense under a capitalist mode of production)
Very cool!
No.1779163
>>1779159>You can't reach space with a 0 growth economy.you will never be able to prove this statement. also if the economy's in space then it's growing…in space
No.1779164
>>1779161A stateless classless society will achieved after we mine the asteroids not before
No.1779165
>>1779164yeah, it was all spelled out right in Critique of the Gotha Programme. asteroid mining is a core component of communism.
No.1779166
>>1779164The conditions for communism have existed since the 19th century at the very least, lmao. Read.
No.1779168
>>1779159I mean 'degrowth' is just a shorthand for what environmentalists want, we want to reduce the harm to the planet/animals/humans/etc, not just arbitrarily 'reduce production', even if we did have to reduce production, we could reduce the size of the economy by 10% by reducing reliance on disposable consumer goods, and grow it by 5% by investing in the space industry.
No.1779169
>>1779159>One aims to maximize production as a goalFuck off Haz. Capitalism aims to maximize production. Socialism aims to maximize fulfilment. Ask any actually existing worker and they'll tell you they'd prefer to reduce the working hours over having more stuff.
No.1779171
> drives to the forefront the ecological crisis rather than the class struggle
they're one and the same
the hyper exploitation of the planets resources is only "necessary" because of capitalism. ecosocialism is just normal ass socialism
No.1779172
>>1779169Honestly, I think a lot of people would tell you they prefer more stuff. But that's just something they've been trained into by a consumerist society.
No.1779174
>>1779171Tell that to the chucklefucks yelling about productive forces.
No.1779175
>>1779172honestly I think the opinions of people who want cheaper luxuries over a stronger social safety net/lower hours are fundamentally invalid, and they should be ignored, if not treated as reactionaries.
No.1779176
>>1779175Well yes, I kind of agree with you. But we should recognise that consumerism has a strong sway over a pretty large group of people and see if there's ways to counter that, not just write them off as evil.
No.1779178
When I worked at home depot, every Christmas we'd get tons and tons of shipments of holiday decorations and displays, and especially bullshit to sell to people, gifts and "stocking stuffers" and the like. The majority of this stuff was destined for a landfill. The "gifts" were usually low quality plastic novelties designed to break not long after being purchased.
Even aside from all the stuff was all the shit it came packed in, boxes and paper and plastic and cord and wire. Mountains of fucking trash. And it wasn't just my store. Every retail store I worked at was the same. Every holiday comes with a literal mountain of trash whose entire existence serves to transport more trash from the factory to the landfill.
Actually producing things people NEED is one thing, but there's tons of bullshit production fat that needs to be cut without remorse.
No.1779179
>>1779176 try pulling your head out of your ass and recognizing that people are more than just fucking walking wallets.
No.1779183
>>1779178Yes. This kind of stuff breaks my heart when I think about it. I really think we should try and eliminate every kind of product that can only be used once (or is likely to only be used once) except for food obviously. Even hygiene products can be used more than once in theory (toilet paper can be replaced with bidets, diapers and sanitary pads can be replaced with cloth versions). Well I guess you can't really reuse soap or shampoo either. But you get my point, we need to crack down on disposable products.
No.1779186
>>1779178>Actually producing things people NEED is one thing, but there's tons of bullshit production fat that needs to be cut without remorse.Anything people need should be made as high quality and long lasting as reasonably possible. That saves a lot of trouble for the consumer and producer in yhe long run. Obviously some things have to be disposable but even in a lot of those cases we can come up with better permanent options that largely replace them (like bidets for toilet paper).
No.1779190
>>1779183>diapers and sanitary pads can be replaced with cloth versions).Menstrual cups are relatively permanent but different things work better for different people.
>Well I guess you can't really reuse soap or shampoo either. You can recycle wastewater and get useful things from it.
No.1779192
>>1779186Right. I think it would be good if we also try to somehow get rid of the idea of trends. I'm not totally sure if this could be entirely achieved because wanting new shiny things seems to be an in built part of human psychology, but for example there's no reason why clothes should 'go out of date'. Or at least not unless the material conditions change to make one kind of clothes less useful.
No.1779193
>>1779190True. We definitely should process waste of all kinds a lot more than we're already doing.
I think another important thing is to try and use plant sources as much as possible for all types of goods, because plants are more or less endlessly renewable as long as we get the fertilizer situation sorted out. We should only use metal or plastic if there's no other practical alternative.
Sigh. It kind of bums me out. What a beautiful world we could make together if only it weren't for capitalism.
No.1779216
>>1779193>as we get the fertilizer situation sorted outNah, the solution is regenerative farming practices. "Just fix it with a better commodity" is how we got here. Fortunately you can actually improve yields while decreasing input costs.
No.1779220
>>1779192Trends would just end up as artisanal/cottage industries people do as a hobby (how it used to be before capitalism). If it ends up being a useful thing (like smartphones) then you can start mass producing it.
No.1779643
>>1779176Consumerism has strong sway over firstoid bourgeois subjectivity. Consumerism is the only bastion they have left for ego development that staves off total nihilistic life denial. The destruction of the circumstances that give rise to such vapid subjects is the goal of the Communist movement.
To consider the importance of its "sway" is as important as considering the "sway" anti-semitism had over the European peasantry.
No.1779664
I keep thinking about the ecofascist doctrines of the IDF: destruction of water resources, the prevention of agriculture, destruction of groves, the tunnel flooding plan that would poison the groundwater, prevention of access to sewage treatment, frequent use of toxic materials in heavy arms. I feel like it's missed amongst the shocking gore, but these are still profound crimes against humanity and nature itself. I wish I knew someone in land management or botany. I believe there can be a resistance permaculture where habitat and agriculture are harnessed to create land that has buffers that prevent invasion, provide shelter and sustenance in times of strife, conserve ecological diversity, and can be resistant to destruction itself. for example: wetlands that can support game birds, absorb and purify greywater, and bog tanks, or trees that hold stong enough to the earth could be planted closely so that they allow bikes to pass and not tanks, grasses that absorb heavy metals could be used to reclaim contaminated land. I'm sure there's a lot there to find but it's not within my field of expertise.
No.1779739
I feels like "make sure what we are doing is actually sustainable" should be a given in a socialist economy, but I suppose affirming it doesn't hurt. I see eco-friendily to just be a pretty way to say logistical.
No.1779831
>>1779739Sustainable in the sense or mere production is not the same as sustainable for the environment. That's why it's important to make the distinction.
No.1780119
>>1779186>Anything people need should be made as high quality and long lasting as reasonably possible. Agree. Tbh I think a lot of production will be eliminated just by replacing disposable crap with durable replacements. Lile, compare disposable razors with something like a straight razor, which with proper care can last multiple lifetimes?
I really don't think that the productive forces really need expanding, generally speaking. Production is already unsustainably high for a lot of things, and it doesn't need to be if those things aren't designed to go from store to garbage can as soon as possible.
No.1780121
>>1780087ergosocialism leads to comfymunism
No.1780169
>>1780119>compare disposable razors with something like a straight razor, which with proper care can last multiple lifetimes?Even if you swap the disposable plastic ones for the steel safety razors, you can just recycle the disposable parts of those, since they're steel.
> really don't think that the productive forces really need expanding, generally speaking.They don't. Basically we hit post scarcity in the sense that it matters when the Great Depression happened. Obviously not all of the world was sufficiently industrialized back then but by now most of it is.
No.1780243
>>1780238
They literally use reforesting to cover massacre cites and evacuated towns.
No.1780249
>>1780238>>1780243for reference (Palestine thread) >>1779758
No.1780259
>>1779664not an expert by any means but decently far into a bio degree and If you aren't already aware you might want to look into phytoremediation which is basically what described the grasses doing. Luckily there are many species of phytoremediators and each region has list a couple species of hardy native plants with phytoremediation properties. Your also right abt wetlands cleaning up water and wetland restoration is more accessible than many think it is. While your def not gonna pull a cyrpess swamp or ombotrophic peat system out of your ass you can def get a good marshland or shrub swamp going with proper native species and some gardening and landscaping.
No.1780371
>>1780238
What I was trying to highlight was that they were deliberately unleashing ecological disasters as a weapon of war. I feel strongly that using ecological disasters should be a crime with consequences.
No.1780394
>>1779664none of this is exclusively "fascist" or "ecofascist" (nonsense made-up term) lol
No.1780396
>>1780238
well fascism is when violence and being violent against nature makes you an ecofascist, i am very smart
No.1780403
>>1780371>What I was trying to highlight was that they were deliberately unleashing ecological disasters as a weapon of war. I feel strongly that using ecological disasters should be a crime with consequences.Agree
No.1780414
>>1780169I feel bad for not using straight razors but the big metal razor blades freak me out
No.1780427
>>1780420it's clearly both. Israel greenwashes itself as a a nation that made a garden in the desert and innovates in solar panels while using the drought that they create in Gaza to demonize the Palestians for the very way Israel victimizes them.
No.1780429
>>1780427It's silly to act like 'eco' is the primary component of their bullshit though. They're much more fascist-fascist than ecofascist.
No.1780433
>>1780429I never said it was a primary component. I'm using the Israelis as an example, there are examples through the entire history of colonialism, but none so present, pressing, or so deliberately calculated to enact genocide. These conditions are not an accident, humanity has learned the lessons of famines, toxic spills, the dustbowl.
No.1780635
>>1780243>reforestingThat isn't ecological. Mass plantations of trees often are devoid of megafauna and animals in general. See Eucalyptus.
No.1781022
>>1780429>>1780433Hitler was a vegetarian. Just because there's some vague suggestion that they're eco-friendly doesn't mean it's eco-fascism. At least you're not being as ridiculous as the tankoids who screech that any concern for ecology is fascism because Hitler ate vegetables.
No.1781155
>>1781022I don't see any point you're actually heading to, just boring and misinformed quibbling. The term ecofascism was coined to examine the use of ecological arguments by fascists and their fellow travellers. Some academics thought there would be ecofascist movements but in all cases it's just been hollow propaganda to smuggle racism into discourse. Israel uses their environmental policy the same way.
No.1781186
It's cringe, fetishisation of the "environment" is for bourgeois freaks who hate the working class.
No.1781786
>>1781186Ecosocialism is the most anthropocentric philosophy there is. Nature is prone to occasional mass extinctions and climate shifts. A truly Malthusian ideology would see this and accept mans place as the current engine of entropy, heralding the new apocalypses. The desire to stop this trend and create Eden on Earth is a Promethean desire, therefore it is the utmost revolutionary in character.
No.1781792
>>1776883Yeah pretty much what this guy says OP I think John Bellamy Foster's writing on ecosocialism is very good
>>1776023 No.1781794
>>1781786I always appreciate your moments of total psychopathy
No.1781807
>>1781794>Psychopathy I care quite a bit anon, some would say too much.
No.1781847
>>1781186Based.
We will colonize the stars and civilize alien savages on rockets power by diesel and lubricated with hippies' tears. We will leave the earth behind a smoking cinder, pumped dry of its every iota of productive potential. Just as Stalin intended.
No.1781860
>>1781794That was by far the least insane thing Tankanon has ever said.
No.1781870
>>1781847<Actually chinlet, communism is the real process to turn the world into Warhammer Very convincing spewrasian anon role play, 10/10
No.1781923
>>1781786Fattest truthnuke ever to be dropped, why would communists ever want to limit human growth just for plants and animals
No.1781925
>>1781923most literate zflag
Tankposter said the anthropocentric thing is to take care of the planet so it would be habitable for humans.
No.1781936
>>1781186>>1781847>>1781923somehow both a radlib and reactionary, you are fundamentally immature and value aesthetics and substance over material analysis, go back
No.1781940
Is there any ecosocialism that has pragmatic ideas for how to implement the ideology beyond theory? I like nature and liberating the people from class structures, but how are we gonna get an industrial environmentally friendly future?
No.1781957
>>1781940there's already been plenty of ideas in this thread, we can replace most things with plant based materials and the things that can't, activate aggressive conservation/recycling until we can get metals from asteroids or whatever
No.1781962
>>1781940Im just spitballin here but like many of the changes made under socialism we already have much of the technology and knowledge and just don't use it cuz capitalism, Here are some small things I think most orgs would be capable of implementing rn
>phytoremediation(using plants to clean up pollution) is a big one I brought up earlier and theres alotta great research on the topic coming out of China on the subject atm. An org could feasibley create moss paste using bonfire moss which absorbs lead pollution.
>I think as solar becomes cheaper and more accessible we could see a possbile radical implenentation of it. For example if there was an org with the funding and knowhow to install solar panels (I'm sure if hyperconservative dipshit preppers can do it so can we) we now have an org with the means to produce electricity independent of capitalists.
>ik by itself its not much but guerilla gardening can still get a great deal done whether its producing crops and for finding the most annoying hardy species to remove and costing landlords huge amounts of the money. Somebody seedbombed some flower beds on the campus I go to and it cost the university thousands of dollars just to remove some cattails. That was a single isolated actor just fucking around. With the right plant species and coordination guerilla gardening could be a form of ecofriendly and very expensive sabotage that can even grow back.
>monkeywrenching is also similar to guerilla gardening in that it can be a great tool if you actually fucking think and coordinate first instead of just doing individual acts of adventurism
>similar solar panels, beekeeping is another method of seizing the means of (honey) production
>wetland restorstion is also within the reach of some orgs imho. Here on the southeast coast if the my DSA really wanted to they could find an area of poor drainage prone to flooding plant some alders,wax-myrtle and marsh grasses and badabing badaboom we now have a shrub swamp that acts as both habitat and water filtration. No.1781985
>>1781981>if the capitalists are incapable of it than its literally impossiblecapitalist realism go brrrrrrrrrr
No.1781999
>>1781985The point is that this is their literal proposal for solving scarcity -
just use up more scarce resources from space wgaf about the future generations lul.
This is not about being unable to imagine a better future, this is about how their proposals are bullshit at worst and science fiction at best.
No.1782032
>>1781999Yeah we in agreement then, especially that last bit the hard truth is that capitalism at this stage can only hamper technological development like space travel since the only thing its actually good for is accruing capital in smaller and smaller groups and not really shit itself.
No.1782044
Go, investigate the abiotic oil theory studied $and uphold the glorious cornucopianism.
No.1782047
Go, investigate the abiotic oil theory studied $and uphold the glorious cornucopianism.
No.1782077
>>1781999Ok what's your alternative solution for how we create more metal then? Other than just say "well magic technology will be able to create it", at least I'm proposing a solution that we know how to do in theory
No.1782097
>>1782077>Ok what's your alternative solution for how we create more metal then?You don't.
>Other than just say "well magic technology will be able to create it",That's exactly what I was calling science fiction.
>at least I'm proposing a solution that we know how to do in theoryWon't solve scarcity.
No.1782101
>>1782097So how are you going to have industrial society without metal?
No.1782115
>>1782112Anprims are not welcome, especially ones that use the internet
No.1782300
>>1782115>especially ones that use the internetpaging the burn unit 🔥 🔥 🔥
No.1782301
>>1781923what>>1781925 said. I'm hugely pro-ecology. I'm stating that the nature/human-activity divide is mostly ideology.
No.1782307
>>1782124>Post a limp-wristed anti-Zerzan cope <Of course he's a unibooSorry, anon meant anarcho-larpinthewoodswithyourparentsmoneyists aren't welcome here.
No.1782328
>>1782101we need the metal, we don't need to convert the metal into toy cars that are made of potmetal and lead paint for the express purpose of dumping them into landfill and the ocean.
No.1782329
>>1782328Yes I'm aware of this which is why I said we should not use metal wherever possible but metal is still a non-renewable resource, which would eventually run out no matter how much recycling was done over a long enough period.
No.1782799
>>1782329>metal is still a non-renewable resourcenah you just melt it bro, trust.
No.1782804
>>1782329We only ever need so much metal. We can always recycle at a certain point. There is a celling to our consumption.
No.1782805
>>1782804Metal rusts, is ground away into dust, and so on, you also lose some each time you recycle
No.1782806
>>1780087Idk about ergosocialism but egosocialism is when I do whatever I want.
No.1782808
>>1782805You can use energy to reduce the rust or regather the metal lost.
What is lost every time is increasing entropy. You can theoretically reuse all the metals you are using if you spend large enough amount of energy.
No.1782814
ecosocialism implies that regular socialism doesn't care at all or does not care enough about ecology and environmental issues, which is wrong.
No.1782820
>>1782077>>1782101>>1782329What the fuck am I reading lmfao
"Non-renewable" is only applied to energy sources/fuels like carbon fossil fuels or (useful isotopes of) uranium because their use results in their conversion to something else AND they can't be reliably produced again either from their same byproducts or not. They're only found on earth due to natural processes that take millions (for fossils) or billions (for uranium) for them to form and end up here, and which cannot keep up with human use.
"Metals", in this case I assume shit like iron or copper or whatever, do not have this characteristic. Once they're used they don't convert to something else and can be easily repurposed and put somewhere else. What only matters is that they stay within the thermodynamic system of the earth (more specifically, the earth's surface).
Unless you're talking about the possibility that human needs would require more metals than what is even present on earth, then that is an actual concern since the processes that create metal atoms are the same as that of uranium. However that is very unlikely unless the human population is in the trillions or some shit.
No.1782824
>>1782820 (samefag)
Again, just to be clear: metals operate on a "
is being used" basis, rather than the "
has been used" for non-renewable fuels. They don't run out, but they can be not enough.
No.1782826
>>1782808You can't just use infinite energy to solve the problem. Unless you come up with some way to artificially create metal from scratch or from plant materials. No matter how much energy you use you can't reprocess at 100% efficiency. A portion of the metal that rusts will just flake away and be lost and some of it will be lost when you remelt the rusted metal.
I guess you could theoretically try to reprocess metal from the air and water but I imagine this would be at horrible efficiency (probably less metal collected than actually would be used by the turbines etc to power the process).
>>1782820You can't get 100% of the material back that you put in, it will be lost through any number of ways as I stated. Rust is just one, if you have a sawblade you are inevitably losing steel off the cutting edge in the process of using it which will just turn to dust and blow away.
I know people don't usually think of things other than power sources as 'non renewable' but we should in my opinion.
However with that said, I suppose we could eventually come up with some process to get metal out of the Earth's mantle directly. This still wouldn't be an infinite supply but certainly an absolutely immense one. Don't get me wrong I'm not kept up at night by this fear but I just think we should move to as much plant-based resources as possible.
>>1782814Unfortunately just like 'democratic socialism' it's a term that needs to be used due to certain people (you know who you are) that piss all over the name of socialism.
No.1782836
>>1782826>it will be lostWhat do you mean? The atoms are still there. They're not going away.
Rust isn't something completely different from iron that makes it useless. All iron that is extracted begins as rusty/oxidised. The energy we use to unbind the oxygen atoms can be from a renewable source (and like that anon said, the only concern entropy which is a trillion-year affair and not important).
The sawblades and dust/specks example will make the metal atoms practically useless in the short term, but they're still there and will gather somewhere that makes collecting them practical just like before. Also it's just a very tiny amount.
No.1782840
Speaking of all of this, this is why people should be more careful when sending spacecraft and creatures into space since the matter and energy sent will then really be out of the earth's thermodynamic system.
No.1803521
Eco is arguably the most important ideology, considering without clean food air and water and livable temp and a safe shelter to live in, we would all be dead. Preserving that takes priority over anything else.
No.1803719
>>1779145>clean air and drinking water is reactionaryyeah ite
No.1803732
>>1779193people need to post more memes irl like this
No.1806199
Socialism implies that there is a worker based economy and a party that controls it. That means there is a still an industrial system of some sort that is polluting the biosphere and extracting resources. Socialism and Environmentalism cannot mix. Any industrial based system is a threat to our Earth and must be done away with.
No.1806233
>>1806199Kaczynskites out
No.1806567
>>1806199>That means there is a still an industrial system of some sort that is polluting the biosphere and extracting resources. Based. Industrial development is good and based
>Socialism and Environmentalism cannot mix.Correct. Environmentalism is fascism
See herre
https://web.archive.org/web/20150407113316/http://www.ecofascism.com/>Any industrial based system is a threat to our Earth and must be done away with.This implies that humans are not natural and aren't part of nature and placing "nature" above humanity.
Thank you for showing the step by step development of environmentalism into fascism
No.1806573
Well the Soviet Union defeated eco socialists once, I’m pretty sure they can do it again
No.1806591
>>1806567>This implies that humans are not natural and aren't part of nature and placing "nature" above humanity.this is the dumbest shit. the alternative is putting capital and industry above the biosphere we need to live. curious how all the extractive industries only displace indigenous populations and are tightly controlled by state security apparatus and western mining companies to keep images of the destruction out of sight from the population and the impossibility of proposed environmental rehabillitation out of their minds.
No.1806653
Cuba is the only ecologically sustainable economy on earth, no need for ecosocialism
No.1806675
Kaczynski reactionaries/an-prim mystics and hyper-industrializer techno-aesthetic fetishists constitute two ends of the only horseshoe theory that truly matters.
No.1806676
>>1806573>can do it again where is the soviet union currently?
Unique IPs: 50