=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt
Log In to post a reply
48 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Jun 28, 2009, 13:50
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt
Jun 28, 2009, 13:49
handofdave wrote:
And there you are. The ideal vs. the real.

Pretty much every demand for change starts life as an ideal and eventually forces itself into the real. So I don't see "it's idealistic" as a significant criticism or obstacle. Things are only ideal until they become real.

handofdave wrote:
It's not a very palatable truth, but it's the truth.... humankind is too prone to squabbles and myopic self-serving for any large scale utopia, or even for a benign dictatorship to succeed.

That may well be a truth, though in my view the jury is still out.

But if there's one thing that amazes me about the sustainability debate, it's how many people describe a sustainable society as being a utopian vision. I'd say a good 95% of all human cultures have been broadly sustainable. Probably closer to 99%. We're the aberration (well, us, the Easter Islanders, as well as a handful of others including -- according to one theory -- the Romans). It's not utopian to live within your ecological means. It's utopian to imagine anything else is possible.

It's the liberal democrats who believe they can simply vote themselves into an ecologically-benign state of perpetual abundance who are pursuing a utopian dream.

If you are saying that sustainable society on a large scale is technically impossible and that complete catastrophic collapse is inevitable... then you may well be right. But I'm dubious of historical inevitabilities, and there's enough reasonable doubt to make it worthwhile discussing and formulating alternatives.

handofdave wrote:
It might work here and there on a small scale, but you're never going to get planetwide compliance with anything.

Not "might". It does work on a small scale. As I say; damn near every pre-industrial culture was "sustainable" by the modern definition of the word. And based upon what we've gathered from anthropology, most of them functioned under a form of benign dictatorship (in the sense that there is little popular input into rule-making, but also little resentment of the power structures).

Personally, I see no inherent reason why larger-scale societies could not have an analogous structure.

The practical difficulties may be insurmountable of course. But the funny thing about insurmountable things, historically speaking, is how often they get surmounted.

If we allow ourselves to glide quietly into the gaping maw of resource depletion and ecological collapse, borne along by the soothing platitudes of corporate-sponsored politicians, then we are condemning the next few generations to violence and suffering on an unprecedented scale.

I say instead, let's draw up some sensible rules regarding negative ecological impact and resource consumption, and live within them. Given the alternative, doesn't it make sense? And if people won't choose the well-being of the planet over their own short-term desires, then shouldn't they be compelled to? Or do you think we have a right to deny a decent life to all who follow us? Are we so hung up on democracy that we think we should be allowed to vote for the destruction of the future?
In reply to:
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt (handofdave)		 Replies:
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt (handofdave)
Re: in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt (laresident)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index