Plus, they absolutely destroy our roads and infrastructure, since our roads weren't designed for regular use by tanks.

They aren't that bad, mainly because they are lightly armored. They're basically just a lifted semi truck with an armoured V shape hull.

As far as damaging infrastructure they prob have to be real careful about driving them into the bottoms of bridges or snagging power lines.

They are just absolutely tactically worthless outside of fighting in an insurgency that's IED happy. Years ago you could buy them at auction, pretty sure Alex Jones had one for a while. On second thought there's a pretty good chance The Onion might have an MRAP.

It's an MRAP, basically what the US military made when too many people were getting blown up by IED in Iraq.

Pretty much worthless for police use, they really are just an anti-mine and anti-ied vehicle with terrible visibility and maneuverability. They for the most part stopped using them because they roll over so often and have been known to shock the shit out of people due to bad wiring.

Says the dude who's spent this whole time defending a free market economy?

You can't defend the free market and then be aghast when the free market decides plastics are profitable.

OK, you are faultless.

I think I started this by saying that assigning blame isn't going to help anyone. If all consumers are to "blame", then how does that even help? People have been made aware plastic isn't good for the environment for decades. You really think your personal harassment campaign is going to be what does the trick?

We are cogs in a machine with no will of our own, controlled by the powerful. Every decision we make is in fact an expression of fake self expression.

Or...... We could just do the same thing we've done with any harmful substance in our history and pressure the government to regulate it?

We just have to hope that someday, our overlords will see the damage they have caused and give us our right to think.

Lol, just because I don't believe in the regulatory power of the free market doesn't mean I think everyone is helpless, or divorced from responsibility.

It's hilarious that in your mind our only options are hope the free market solves the problem, or just sitting back and doing nothing.

Also.......you might wanna dial back the performative writing, i think you might be guilding the lilly a bit. Feels like I'm trying to have a conversation with a teenage Ron Paul who just finished Atlas Shrugged for the first time.

Oh, nope. Rereading it, you're totally right. Just a little of my dyslexia seeping in lol. My bad!

Yes, exactly why I said it's a platitude. It's thoughtless and trite. I'm saying: consumption is not ethical, no matter which system. There is no ethical consumption.

That's a false dichotomy.......even if we agreed with your definition of all consumption being unethical, it wouldn't mean that there aren't different levels of unethical practices used to produce those consumables.

All consumption being unethical does not mean that all forms of production are equally unethical. If that's the case you wouldn't really have a problem with sending the kids back to the mines.

It paints consumers as mere puppets or robots who are unable to make choices or decisions that could lead to a reduction of suffering.

Can you point to a time in history where a general boycott of a dangerous or harmful product was successful without the help of government intervention?

Any other system created by humans is flawed and infected the human disease, doomed to create suffering and torment.

And apparently that doesn't happen under capitalism? Then what exactly are you bitching about plastic for?

"ethical consumption" in any other living system is wishful thinking. It doesn't exist.

Again, your argument is based on a forced false dichotomy.

Not to mention that it seems like you are really just a libertarian angry at consumers for participating in the "free market".

You can't simultaneously believe that the free market is the best way to regulate the economy, but upset at the people for their consumption habits in a free market.

Our consumption drives companies to produce. Without consumption there is no reason to produce. Could companies produce in a less polluting manner? Absolutely!

This belief in the free market only works if you infantise the process. The 5 companies who make the plastic aren't selling it directly to the consumer. They are selling it to other manufacturers, who are then utilizing it to make or package their own products.

So in this situation, the secondary manufacturer would have to decide to utilize less plastics. Since it's more than likely a publicly shared company, they have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders.

Now there may be a small market for people who are willing to pay much more for less plastic. However, as you said if they did it for every product it would drive cost up, and make people consume less. Less consumption is not a motivator for capitalism. It would probably be something that shareholders could actually use the board of directors for.

You are relying on the "free market" to regulate itself while also ignoring the basic profit motive inherent in free market capitalism.

the more probable outcome is that another company will come along that doesn't give two shits about anything except money, will sell a cheaper product and we will buy that one instead.

Lol, how is another company going to magically make a product without plastic cheaper than a billion dollar multi conglomerate that has established production and supply lines?

The reason corporations don't give up plastic is because it's basically a miracle material for logistics and production. It's light weight, durable, chemically inert, and a hell of a lot cheaper than anything else on the market.

It's a cycle and both sides drive it. Demanding companies to produce less is cyclic demand for consumers to consume less.

Again, an over simplification. That model is about 100 years out of date, and with the advent of marketing and outsourced production in the 20th century we often get scenarios where production drives consumption.

"production driven consumption is a situation where a company mass-produces a new, innovative product at a low cost, actively marketing it heavily to create a significant demand even among people who may not have initially needed the product, effectively pushing them to consume it due to its readily available and affordable nature; this is often seen in the tech industry with the release of new smartphones or gadgets, where manufacturers create a sense of "need" through marketing and readily available supply, leading consumers to purchase even if they don't have a pressing need for an upgrade. "

Yeah, and helping feed people wasn't exactly his original motivation for the haber-bosch process either. During the late 19th century empires were running low on natural sources of nitrates for making gun powder, as the British had held a near monopoly of the guano mines in South America and India.

Judging by this, his time as an artillery man for the prussians, his combustion research after he finished the haber process, and his over all obsession with creating weapons of war..... It's pretty safe to assume fertilizer was an afterthought.

think it's critical actually. If most people think that their actions have no impact whatsoever and that no change on their part is required in order to affect a change in the system, then of course nothing will change. People have to realise that they are a part of the problem.

Yeah, and plenty of people have spent their lives attempting to do that with no effect. If we look at the history of regulating dangerous or harmful substances from the market, public boycotts are not effective.

Again, I disagree. The general public actually has a lot of power that it does not, and often times will not wield. People don't show up to elections, vote egoistically or in a tribal manner, do not change their habits, do not try to reason about the things they hear/read/see, and just generally cruise along as long as they can tolerate their circumstances.

The two statements in this argument seem pretty antithetical.

I can't avoid most plastics, but I try. I buy local produce where possible, I collect and try to reuse plastics (or pretty much anything actually), and will ask for non-plastic options (or choose them if they are visible). It's not much, but it's something.

Ahh, so the answer to your first question "who is going out and buying plastic?" is you.

Not trying to belittle your beliefs, but this kinda solidifies my argument that the consumer has very little choice in how corporations choose to mitigate cost.

The idea of boycott and personal responsibility are a byproduct of idealized liberalism. Not as in "woke" liberal, but as in belief in the free market deciding how society regulates itself. In reality corporations lobby together to take away choice from consumers, and that's always been how capitalism works.

We can't just say "omg, it's impossible" and not try, which is what most people do when they say shit like "ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible" or "corporations are to blame" or "I don't vote because I have no power".

I think you're conflating a lot of different problems, so let's stick to the one at hand. "ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible".

It really depends on your perspective, most people who claim this are saying that because capitalism relies on exploiting workers labour for profit. Now even disregarding people's ideas of how to organize labour, capitalism and it's tendency to monopolize makes choice nearly impossible.

Most of the items available at the store are owned by a handful of conglomerates pretending to compete against each other. Even if we got more of the population to switch to the same practices you do, it wouldn't really wouldn't motivate different companies to migrate away from plastic all together.

They would just have an "environmental" brand where they significantly mark up the products and an economic brand that was a lot cheaper. Some people may be willing to pay more for a symbolic act that makes them feel superior, but that is not really how the vast majority of people behave when they are shopping.

As history has shown time after time, government intervention is the only way to regulate capital.

I'm not rejecting the blame. I'm saying we're part of the problem. You can't seriously think that you are faultless.

I don't think finding fault is really helpful in actually solving the issue. The problem is really just too large to assume the general public really has a lot of control over it.

As a whole, it's pretty clear that humans aren't exactly the best guardians of their own self interest. On top of that corporations have a lot more control over our own politicians than we do as consumers.

Lastly, just because you can afford to avoid most plastics, doesn't mean that the majority of the population can afford to do the same. For the most part the cheaper the groceries or other consumables, the more you'll usually see plastic in the packaging.

Fritz Haber for example

I mean....... Haber isn't exactly a giant of morality and ethics. He did invent most of the chemical weapons utilized in WW1, and expressly defended their use as weapons.

Well, we can't effectively ban guns. At least not in our foreseeable political future. And the people who are already armed are overwhelmingly voting to elect a fascist who likes to incite violence among minority groups.......... It's kinda easy to see why people would want to arm themselves.

Cool, thanks. I'll have to check out dbzer0 and lemmygrad. Still kinda learning about navigating Lemmy all together. Old man brain isn't as spry as it used to be when it comes to social media.

Have a good one!

Fair enough, though I apologize if it seems as if I was confrontational in any way. That wasn't my intent.

If you do have any contemporary readings that go into the subject I would love to give them a read. I'm prob a bit older than most people on this site, and I'm really just interested to see how the divergence between my views as an older leftist and younger leftist have developed over time.

Thanks for your time.

It's the entire concept of "critical support," an enemy acting against a bigger enemy can be relied on with respect to their stance against said mutual enemy.

Does that not require a more indepth investigation into the motive of the country you are critically supporting, and isn't that investigation reliant on perspective?

In one perspective you could critically support Russia for inciting destructive competition between the great powers. While criticizing their motive, and means.

On the other you could critically support Ukraine for defending themselves from colonial extraction from great power. While criticizing reactionary forces within their government.

you can ask Marxists directly in their comms for more info, this is a comm for Anarchism and I don't wish to infringe on that.

Fair enough, just thought I should take the opportunity while I could. I have tried to breach this subject a couple different times in their comm, but tend to just get called a Nazi or other slurs.

Thanks for the dialogue, I appreciate it.

Hence why Imperialism defeats itself.

Right, I'm not defending imperialism though. It just seems that leftist shouldn't be supporting the most reactionary views of the masses.

Supporting regimes like Russia is dismissing the social struggle of potential revolutionary voices at home and abroad.

"The tendency of tailism can be observed in the dismissive and confrontational attitudes some on the left take to matters of social importance—women’s struggles, LGBT+ issues, racism, etc.—that are adjacent to class struggle. We have surely all heard it said countless times that certain issues are “a distraction from class struggle,” or “not of any concern to the working class.” It surely does not need pointing out that the working class comprises people of all gender backgrounds, sexual orientations, races, and ethnicities, and these struggles are of direct and immediate concern to them and their lives. In fact these struggles are inextricably linked to class struggle and should always be regarded as such.

As communists, we assert that the primary contradiction that shapes and defines the world is that of class struggle: between the bourgeoisie and the working class. However, it does not follow from this that our work or our analysis must disregard all other contradictions and struggles as irrelevant. Quite the contrary: we must seek to unite struggles against all forms of exploitation in the revolutionary fight for communism. This is the very nature of class struggle.

In addition, Lenin critiques the narrow focus of economism, which he describes thus: “The Economists [limit] the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle [is] the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.”[2] He asserts that the fight for revolutionary gains must be waged on a political as well as an economic front. The task of communists is to unite the working class in a revolutionary movement, not to limit our focus to mere economic demands, which are in any case quantitative and not transformative."

My point is that the "war" was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively

But people are utilizing the "short hand" of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.

Finally, it isn't antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time.

Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.

I just don't really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.

Haven't read politzer, so I will have to give it a read. Thanks.

However, I was moreso asking how dialectical materialism is being applied in a way that validates supporting right winged nationalist governments like Russia or Syria.

It stems from the dialectical part of dialectical materialism.

Yeah, but anyone can claim that they are acting within dialectical reasons. If you have some reading material that explains the actual dialectical process, I would love to give it a read.

So the thought is basically "let's get the shitty part out of the way, so we can get to the good stuff."

Yeah, but Lenin wrote specifically why this (tailism) is a mistake.

"Lenin describes tailism in What Is to Be Done? as the tendency of some activists to drag (like a tail) behind the most progressive elements of the working-class movement, by reflecting in their politics only the most reactionary views of the masses.[1] This is a mistake, because, firstly, it underestimates the political and revolutionary potential of the working class, and secondly, communists must be the revolutionary vanguard of the struggle, not lagging behind it as reactionaries within the movement."

Lenin didn't define Imperialism as "competition between great powers," just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers.

I feel like that's a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.

The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin's analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits

I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn't really ever mention the "global South", during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.

selling back in the Imperial Core.

Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.