7

Radical ecologism (Jacques Ellul, André Gorz, Ivan Illich) and left anarchism (Bakunin, Guy Debord) advocate for the disparition of the state, in favor of little communes, living peacefully, sharing what they produce.

How do these movements tackle the issue of other countries military imperialism?

A territory with no state and people living such a way of life would be very easy to conquer for a country which does not adopt radical ecologism and anarchist communism values, and such countries are numerous.

For instance:

_Do they plan to convince these other countries to adopt their values?

_Do they hold that, except from the West, other countries are not imperialist, so this is not an issue?

9
  • 1
    Does anyone argue that we need to do this now in our country or do they describe this as an ideal for humanity in general? Sep 12, 2023 at 12:55
  • @Bougainville I don’t know. I did not read about how their ideology relates with outside countries
    – Starckman
    Sep 13, 2023 at 3:56
  • Subvert the Empire? Most likely any empire still relies on oppressing it's citizens, so there's probably not even a need to convince them that this is bad, you'd just need to show them that it's unnessesary and possible without the empire.
    – haxor789
    Sep 13, 2023 at 12:29
  • 1
    Ignore keeping the neighbours out - how do you keep the sea out? One of the oldest continuous governments (predating modern states by centuries) are the Dutch water boards.
    – MSalters
    Sep 14, 2023 at 14:17

3 Answers 3

7

The importance of these worldviews doesn't lie in their pragmatism or realism; the importance lies in the expression of a high-minded ideal.

I mean — and please pardon the cynicism — it's an observable fact that corrupt, degraded, amoral people put a lot of effort into convincing those around them to be corrupt, degraded, and amoral. People without ethics feel judged and diminished by people with ethics, and so they have to undercut ethics wherever they see it just to feel good about themselves. It's a sad and karmic aspect of human nature, but it is what is. Someone has to speak for higher values, or all anyone will ever hear is the scratching of beasts at the door.

10
  • But that would run counter to Kant's "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". It would be awful if everybody would adopt eco-anarchism as the unversal law and then it would not work for them by design.
    – alamar
    Sep 22, 2023 at 21:04
  • @alamar: Why would it be awful if everybody would adopt eco-anarchism as a universal law? It's utopian, sure, but I don't see a downside to it apart from that. Sep 22, 2023 at 21:24
  • Humans are not robots, they have individuality: If eco-anarchism is unstable in presense of smallest attempts of power grabbing, you will quickly end up with unscrupulous eco-anarchists taking over the rest of the population, and thus emergency of hierarchy. It would be an interesting area of discussion how much peer to peer policing would a community of faithful eco-anarchists need to prevent this from happening, and whether it would predictably fail as soon as one sufficiently large faction of hierarchists emerge.
    – alamar
    Sep 22, 2023 at 21:53
  • @alamar: You can't argue against the value of an ideal by arguing it isn't practical. Ideals are never practical. Sep 22, 2023 at 22:42
  • Kand could and so would I.
    – alamar
    Sep 22, 2023 at 22:50
5

It is hard to find any theoretical politics that are pragmatic enough to be seen as anything other than ideal forms. As such, the United States is colloquially "capitalist" because we proclaim to aspire to capitalist ideals and generally do in practice.

Many die-hard fans of Marx will hammer (and sickle) down the idea that communism is fundamentally stateless, but this is obviously completely impractical as there are currently states... Offshoots of communist theory are conveniently separated from the Marxian theory because they took the step of being pragmatic enough to attempt to implement communism in the real world (think: tankies). In this way, Marxist theory tends to insulate itself from criticism by flaunting its ideal form as totally realistic if only it was done "correctly". It is the same as die-hard, Adam Smith capitalists dismissing criticisms of capitalism because no country has ever gone completely free market "correctly" (of course, ignoring the fact that Adam Smith didn't even believe in completely free markets).

To answer the question directly: They necessarily don't as a condition of the framing of the theory. It is presupposed that the environment is fertile for such a system to occur. Any attempts at causing that environment to occur are described as a separate ideology.

5
  • 1
    Well, many radical ecologists do implement their theory, they are called "degrowth", and are people who go to live in the Alps (for instance), in little communities, cultivating their own vegetables, building their own ecological home, finding solutions to get drinkable water from the rain, etc. There are many coverage of these endeavors on Youtube
    – Starckman
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:15
  • 1
    Often they will also make a living by selling the vegetables they produce via the "short food supply chains" system, for instance; or by working in association who promotes ecological ways of life and techniques (e.g. compost)
    – Starckman
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:17
  • Yes, but they don't implement their theory to the necessary extent that it is self-perpetuating. In other words, as you seem to imply by this question, radical ecologists do not exist anywhere other than in disjointed and remote communities. In this sense radical ecologist society has always existed in the form of communities that don't have contact with the rest of society. However, these communities only exist because there is yet no reason for imperialist powers to care about them. To exist beyond those parameters would cause that community to no longer represent radical ecology. Sep 14, 2023 at 13:13
  • "Yes, but they don't implement their theory to the necessary extent that it is self-perpetuating." But they want their ideology to expand across the globe. Otherwise, they won't self-claimed to be a political movement.
    – Starckman
    Sep 14, 2023 at 13:17
  • 1
    They want to, but not literally. As I have described, to take any actual steps toward expanding the ideology globally, the movement would necessarily have to betray its own ideals by coercing others to adopt the "correct' perspective. In the context of modern society, this would require organization on a broad scale which is directly antithetical to the core beliefs of those movements. Of course, I can't predict the future which is why "they just didn't do it correctly" will always be somewhat valid... maybe we all decide to live in the mountains and abandon nationality tomorrow for fun! Sep 14, 2023 at 13:23
2

Marx said for workers for the world to unite, not workers in their respective countries. Anything short of that won't and hasn't ever worked. People need to put too many resources into defense, otherwise.

10
  • Ok, but what about when workers in countries B are subjected to an imperialist state which aims to conquer countries A? Also my question concerns more anti-state left ideologies (radical ecologism and left anarchism) than communism; which, because it recognizes the legitimacy of the state (at least during the first phase of the dictatorship) doesn't exhibit the issue my question points to
    – Starckman
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:27
  • 2
    Marx never described communism and he and Bakunin (who was referred to as a revolutionary socialist at first) agreed on a lot and say a lot of the same stuff, just differed on tactics, which is basically still the difference today. What you're describing would be a failed attempt.
    – user47368
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:31
  • Then I feel marxism (including radical ecologism, communism and anarchism) needs to rely on a massive use of propaganda (in the neutral sense of the term), if the proletariat/anti-capitalists have to unite at the same time all over the world. This is not really what they do when the radical ecologists go to live withdrawn in the mountains, rejecting WIFI, etc.
    – Starckman
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:35
  • They would need to coordinate and grow yes. Radical ecologists might have options in the current world if there are locations left that aren't wanted for their resources, though it'd rarely be the best land. I can't say I'm as familiar with them, their wants probably differ.
    – user47368
    Sep 14, 2023 at 12:40
  • 1
    They have very different views, Marx wasn't a luddite.
    – user47368
    Sep 14, 2023 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .