Was he right?

I read "Industrial Society and Its Future" and it seems pretty spot on. Technology and "progress" has not made people any happier - on the contrary, people are more depressed, more anxious, more lonely today than ever before. A return to primitive communism seems to be the only solution. Communism based on false ideas of "progress" is imbued with the same capitalist value system that created industrial civilization.

Even though a communist regime would be far better than a capitalist oligarchy, would it be able to ensure that we live fulfilling and meaningful lives? Maybe for some - but most people, conditioned by industrial society to prefer leisure and luxury to meaningful collective effort and struggle, will passively resist the system no matter how good it is.

Even if the global proletarian revolution is successful, what guarantees do we have that it won't degenerate back into capitalism?

Sure, people in Eastern Europe nowadays complain all the time about how much better things used to be before. But they didn't lift a finger to defend socialism, which was defeated virtually without firing a shot in self-defense. Why is this?

In contrast to primitive communist societies, industrial societies encourage selfishness, hedonism, and self-interest. When we sever our grounding in Nature, we become focused mostly on ourselves. People literally destroyed their own countries and let themselves be pillaged by oligarchs on the false promise that they might get blue jeans and 10 flavors of bubble gum. Struggle is anathema to industrial society - the easy way of least resistance is always preferable.

I don't support completely reverting to stone age lifestyles. We could still have a few ecologically benign pharmaceutical factories doing organic synthesis out of simple precursors, so that people aren't dying of preventable disease. But the vast majority of all this modern shit has to go.

Imagine how much happier we would be if the time we spent on this website, reading and discussing how shitty the world is, we spent guiding fellow hunter-gatherers through ahayuasca trips, or telling mythical stories to other hunter-gatherers around the campfire?

Attached: aK4us69g.png (728x731, 323.29K)

Other urls found in this thread:


That's some back-ass-wards shit right there buddy. First of all, in that it's hard to prove whether "primitive" people were happier, second of all because socialism has shown the potential to greatly boost standards of living.
No existential philosophy on my communist board, you sick bastard.
The base precedes the superstructure, numbnuts.
I could say the same for, why doesn't capitalism revert to feudalism. Or, for that matter, why won't your Kaczynskite utopia revert to capitalism?
That's just a fuckin' lie.
Imagine how much happier we would be if, instead of having hot showers, running water and refrigerators, we just drank some fucking trip juice to make ourselves constantly vomit and see animal spirits because that's the only way to take our minds off of the fact that we're living in the fucking woods and our standard of living is total and complete shite?

Attached: aa18d79455385e5b4fd39058946a3085006e689c4b8b7d2eb7aa1a821380c477.jpg (495x337, 76.1K)

We need to go back to before the creation of the universe.

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo from the mind of a lunatic. See comic. That's where you are right now.

Attached: Y3sd9Pz.jpg (800x480, 111.94K)

Just compare the rates of suicide, depression, nihilism in hunter-gatherer tribes with modern people. Hunter-gatherers have a clear meaning to their lives - survival. Modern people are everywhere suffering from a crisis of meaning and purpose.

I agree that socialism was and is a great thing. But I think its problem is that it's not anti-capitalist enough. The whole idea of "progress" arose out of capitalism, industry arose out of capitalism. You can't escape capitalism via capitalist value systems.

The base of industrialized society is always forcing the move towards even worse, more alienating forms of capitalism. Socialism that is predicated on the values of modernity is constantly fighting an uphill battle against pro-capitalist trends inherent to industrial society. That's why socialism, objectively superior to capitalism, suffered a terrible defeat everywhere except for a handful of countries.

I'm not sure if this ever happened, although you could argue modern capitalism is feudalistic. Socialism reverting to capitalism happened all over the world, unfortunately.

There can't be industrial capitalism without industry, and there can't be mercantile capitalism without horribly destructive agriculture. A worldwide primitive communist society retaining a small number of aspects of modern society (literacy, books, basic pharmaceuticals) will never revert to capitalism because the values of communalism, environmentalism, collective struggle, etc, will be anathema to capitalism. As hard as socialist societies tried to stamp out "capitalist roaders", they failed because they relied on industrialization and modernity - which are fundamentally capitalist.

There were a few thousand brave souls who fought against Yeltsin in 1993. But most people did nothing

Why have hot showers when you could swim in the waterfall or lake or hot springs?
What's the point when you could drink clean stream water or rain water?
To store killed animals raised in hellish nightmare torture factories, or GMO plants destroying the environment (it's damaging to grow only one kind of crop in an area)? Why not just gather fruits and berries and vegetables?
How do you define "standard of living". If you define it as happiness, fulfillment, meaning, and purpose, they had a lot more of that than the lost, anxious, depressed, nihilistic hedonistic consumers that make up most of the world today.

Attached: sentinel.jpg (1280x720, 221.28K)

correction: it's not the plants that are destroying the environment, it's the capitalists and their scientists that are doing it

1. No.

2. Happiness is a shit-tier goal.

3. He's right that society and economics adapt around technological advancement. He's right that contemporary conservatives and reactionaries completely overlook this. But Engels also made this observation. This observation can be (correctly) made without believing that everything would be better without industry. Most of Kaszcynski's actual good points are scored against morons who completely overlooked this - I don't think he actually has anything particularly compelling against actual leftists who acknowledge the role of technology.

I see you have spent some efforts to post, so I too will do the same.
What is the population number of industrial society and ancient society? (just ancient society, not prehistoric hunting gathering) The Roman and Han Empire, at their peaks, each had around 60 millions souls, while modern area of Roman Empire has near 700 millions, an order of magnitude, the population of modern "Han Empire" is over billion.
So you can choose to live in primitive communist society, but for some people, they feel comfortable in industrial society. So when those people master the industrial productive forces, they will dominate the world, it's the way of nature, no one can defy it. The question is just whether they can master it or not, whether they survive the test of history or not. This is not a theoretical matter, but a practical struggle for existence. You said there are no struggle spirit in industrial society, but you are mistaken. Each person, by living in industrial society, by contributing to its well-being, is actually struggling for the existence of industrial society and themselves. Prehistoric people struggled against the tyranny of one vs. many, that's correct, but it doesn't mean modern people cannot do the same. People must change, everything must change, that's the key of everything, of every problem.

I'm an optimist. Industrial society has some problems now, that's right, but the same can be talk when our ancestors switched from using natural strength to tool making, and from hunting gathering to agriculture. The first experiments are always full of mistakes and catastrophes, but as Lao Zi said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and mankind now, are taking the first steps. You can think our efforts are nothing but wasteful and lead to destruction, but we think otherwise. We try, therefore we can fail, if we do not try, we will never success. I just remember the video game Civilization V, when I reached industrial era and built 3 first factories, the game said it's time of Brave New World! Yes, the people of old era loath this dystopian "Brave New World", but for me, to live in this Brave New World era is to live in one of greatest moments of mankind, it's an exciting time to live in.

Maslow's pyramid. We have the privilege to suffer from it and it's not a bad thing, it's an inevitable symptom of having a greater level of individual liberty.

Or, we can exist in a society that is still technologically advanced but acts as a steward to the world. It's not an either or situation m8

But why is that? People aren't depressed and anxious because of technology, not explicitly technology at least. That people don't feel well is the product of capitalist society. When people worry about paying the bills and healthcare, while at the same time working in a cubicle all day, it's no wonder people feel the way they do.
That won't happen, and I say this as someone somewhat sympathetic to primitive life. There's a reason why we don't live in times like those anymore, and the reason hasn't dissapeared in any way in today's world.
The things is we don't have leisure and luxury. What we have is something close to being tied up and getting shot from behind with a gun, while at the same time it takes centuries for the bullet to arrive. You can't escape it, but neither does the tradegy arrive.
Only way to be certain is, for the lack of better word, communism to be "better" than capitalism. Socialism of 20th century couldn't compete with capitalism so it failed. The only thing to get over capitalism will be something that will surpass it in the development of productive forces. That thing indeed might be better and more robust socialism.
P U R E I D E O L O G Y It's nothing more than the liberal idea of having your cake and eating it too. You either have primitive society or you don't. Middle ground only makes the hoop in one direction or the other after a while

I agree with Zizek when he says that we, rather than seeking to eliminate alienation entirely as a socioeconomic phenomenon, we should instead just try to 'negotiate' and aim at a healthy amount of it (obviously, i'm not arguing for reforms even if he is). There's no going back to 'pure' and 'natural' primitive societies where the only thing we do is fulfill our biological needs and then go to bed and maybe get raided by other hungry tribes, anyways, from a material standpoint.
Might as well become an eco-fascist at this point, tbh. What's the problem with wanting a world where people just pursue and wallow in their own stupidity?

Exactly, Ted Kaczynski was WRONG, Industrial society CAN be used to the benefit of mankind, and Cuba has been shown it can be compatible with the Earth too.

Unabomber was honestly like a Naruto villain tbh, I think he just needed someone to talk sense back into him and show him that the world isn’t hopeless

Attached: D6BDC2FC-0918-42FC-98FC-C3257A60899E.jpeg (1221x1832, 135.23K)

Attached: thanks capitalism.jpg (2300x1594, 675.01K)

You didn't mean technology you meant capitalist alienation and atomization
earth could support about 600 million people during advanced feudalism,
Far better you say ? I'll take far better
Economic factors in the collapse of the Soviet system:
People did vote to keep the USSR, keep in mind that they got hit by the most brutal neoliberal shock doctrine
Industrial society isn't the same as consumerism, and no the way societies is now, was not the way of least resistance, there is a enormous amount of effort going into upholding this, companies quite often spend more money for marketing then for the products they market. In contrast you could with greatly reduced effort replace the irrational messages in advertisement, with rational ones, and instead persuade people to make rational choices. When you compare primitive society with industrial society, you should go look at life expectancy and odds of survival.
Without industrial society you won't be able to produce enough surplus to be able to feed people that specialize in this, let along be able to produce the laboratory equipment necessary. Even simple stuff like sterile production becomes near impossible.
There currently a anti-technology-poser wave going through this sub, and no I prefer to imagine how much happier we would be if we had overcome capitalism, besides technology is basically a evolutionary must have for a society.

Class-less technologically advanced socialism all the way, then socialism in one solar system followed by interstellar and intergalactical socialism.

Attached: scificity.jpeg (2752x1714 123.71 KB, 205.15K)

First off I would like to say that I am in no way a Hybristophile.,I don't obsesses over school shooters or serial killers but their was something about Ted Kaczunski that caught my interest,researching his story made me feel for him and I could tell he was an intelligent man with a complex worldview plus I found him attractive
I had fantasies where I was living with him in the woods as his homestead wife,an he would go out hunting and as I tend the garden…
It was a stupid fantasy that I have abandoned now

Attached: 1522809050416.jpg (922x910 35.45 KB, 770.67K)

This. There will be computing communes named after Perelman on other galaxies soon and there's nothing the reactionaries can do to stop it.

There's no way you're not a tranny

A war between a technological country and a non-technological one will see the technological one win 99% of the time. For this reason anti-technology ideology is collective suicide and can never win.

First mistake.

Yes civilization is a meme that has an expiration date

Attached: DmH6AC9UUAE2GMW.jpg.jpg (824x960, 85.01K)

read jefferson next.

prove it

civilization or at least your first world life style is dependent on none renewable resources and we live on a finite planet

NIF, fast-breeder reactors, asteroid mining, synthetic meat production and so on.
And of course aggresive hyperfascism. (or post-scarcity gommunism, I hope).
Climate change will reap massive destruction but resources won't simply dry out, Peak Oil was based on economical data that changed, and the other stuff can change too.

but these are not real

so? finite resources will die out when they are expended.

regardless of when "peak oil" actually is. There is a limited number of oil on the planet while we might have alternatives to fuel, we do not have alternatives to oil

bumping cause you saged

They or similar alternatives will become viable as resources dry out, and maybe we'll go for a variation of Small is Beautiful as constraints hit, but neo-malthusianism is concentrated, diluted, 100% pure idealism that couldn't even be produced under agricultural societies.
Really the only reason I'm not as angry as that Trotposter is that NIF's failure was the 2nd biggest disappointment of my teenage years.

but you can't prove this.
This is just wishful thinking.

no one is talking about malthusianism. However you not liking something does not make it idealism.

Well, the burden of proof is on the people saying "this time it's different", a materialist analysis shows that resource constraints only wiped out primitive societies, and people like the Club of Rome have been wrong so far.
How is "resources run out" different from Malthusianism updated for the Industrial Age?
I'm not denying climate change or all the other externalities as possibly able to radically disrupt modern life, I'm saying that applying linear thinking to non-linear problems can be wishful thinking too.
And read Thomas Kuhn on the subject, you can read all those electrooptics books too but please don't accuse me of idealism, lasers are socialist praxis and noone can deny that. (I've already admitted the NIF was a failure but look how beautiful it is).

Attached: lead-image-1528997505.jpg (856x575 24.37 KB, 54.15K)

forgot pics sorry

Attached: nif-0506-11956_14.jpg (1000x815 5.03 MB, 339.77K)

Thats not how debate works. If you going to claim X thing is going to happen you need to prove that it will. At this point you have not.

You brought up Malthus not I.
Simply stating that our modern lives are dependent on finite resources is not "Malthusian"
Is talking about Climate change Malthusian too?

what are you getting at here

Read Uncle Ted

Already read Uncle Ted, I'm saying that even those resources that may run out can be replaced, anprim is reactionary waffle.
He was right on oversocialization though, maybe that's where this panic comes from.

you need to prove this first

Decarbonisation, sinking cost of solar panels (thanks Hu!), new generation of atomic reactors, it's already happening.

All of these are widely available and if African kids need to die for it neither China or Europe give a shit.
Peak Oil got wildly btfo (pic 3) and a rehash of 70s scaremongering isn't materialism.
Synthetic meat already exists, asteroid mining's greatest block is profitability, and China is massively investing in nuclear and renewable energy with an open mind, because they're not liberals.
Panicking over climate change is acceptable, I suppose, but the paranoia over dwindling resources is neolib scaremongering.

Attached: GGap2.jpg (750x499 39.63 KB, 127.92K)

you're saying this as if its a counter to anything. I said we have an alternative to fuel just not an alternative to oil

Oil is a finite resource. When peak oil will happen is still up in the air,

but it doesn't exist.

this is relevant how?

Like I said this whole time. Modern life is dependent on finite resources.

And when peak oil happens it won't matter much, until we stay cappie
I replied to a bullshit 2040 article, if the structure of society means it won't be necessary because Dark Enlightenment gets the goods or for any other reason, that's our problem.
Peak Oil and Peak Coal will become irrelevant, most minerals are abundant enough for their current uses and will become more so after the end of capitalism, plus more and more discoveries are made each day.
Premodern life too, luckily only primitive societies get wiped out by such silliness as a resource choke.

currently oil is required to make almost everything around us so yeah it will be pretty devastating when that dries up

prove it

They are r/futurology liberals wearing red t-shirts manufactured by slaves and shipped to the other side of the world on a massive tanker burning bunker fuel. They truly don't have the stomach to consider the collapse, or even the faltering/stasis of industrial civilization and what that would entail for their way of life and their image of the future. The impacts of the accelerating climate catastrophe and biodiversity loss, topsoil erosion, oil scarcity, ocean acidification, etc. You will find people on this board who claim that carrying capacity doesn't apply to humans 'because technology' while the world is undergoing a new extinction event of our own creation. People are really quite terrible at dealing with 'Bad News' - this is the lesson you will learn. They will never earnestly research (or even be able to rationally think about) what you are trying to tell them because it would cripple them, destroy their image of the future, their society, and their place in it, and cause anxiety for which there is no immediate alleviation (but for which denial of the subject is very easy). They don't have the ability to consciously process this information - their consciousness filters 'Bad News' and disregards it before it can even reach the analytical parts of their brain.

Attached: D4NvbSUWwAE4VCW.jpg (1125x1312, 142.79K)

How does it feel to know we’ll have to face even greater nightmares than our ancestors did (as in our past comrades of the 20th Century)?

It will never dry up the way most people imagine, look into what Peak Oil meant when it was originally formulated. Also bioplastics are moving into more applications each day and like I said, Uncle Ted is fun but a reactionary American.
Well yeah, the point is, do we go silly anprim and an hero right now or do we choose socialism and try to prolong it after Earth?

Your post smacks of capitalist realism, a dose of idealist defeatism and maybe a humanities major, self-criticism is in order. You may say my post stinks of the opposites, I'm just saying that a linear resource choke has only ever killed primitive societies, global capitalism may die of climate change but it has adapted to dwindling or more difficult availability of resources that far and there is no concrete reason to say this won't be the point. Maybe modern life will have to change under socialism, but panic over finite resources is an antiquated form of idealism.


I'm taking umbrage only with resource scarcity, all my posts accept that the catastrophic denial of climate change has already ruined technoindustrial civ, no harm to that, inna mountains it is.
I'm just training zoomers as an expert blackpill.
Also your blog needs Land, off you go

now schizophrenia has adjusted your set flies crawl out of the eye-sockets of black babies breeding the dot patterns -and for your special entertainment we have turned you into a TV guided bomb daddy is a North American aerospace corporation mummy is an air-raid shelter bit parts melt in the orgasm body fat burns conception you are minus nine months and counting don't be scared take twenty billion years and universal history is on the screen big bang is to be redesigned hydrogen fuses under the arc-lights the camera angles can be improved outside the studio schizophrenics drift in green and black you feel that you've been here before 11.35 on a beautiful capitalist evening

Attached: 5c970973aefb230a1be9eabbdbb1cf53b4c49cafd40978c6d6f29ed067749560.jpg (3500x2950 1.1 MB, 587.05K)

There can be life without oil too, upgrade your doomerism to something more threatening. I like Uncle Ted too but you're waiting for a catastrophe that will disappoint in all sorts of ways. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you any optimism or blackpill, just saying you should optimize your fears.

No where did I say everyone was going to die. I said modern life.

read the rising tide of color and the end of global white supremacy by lothrop stoddard
read settlers by j Sakai

race war is cumming

Let's all love (early) Land

Attached: 1556853840175.png (1366x768, 913.37K)

Maybe I misunderstood part of your posts, is my position so let's have our bandit groups form an uneasy alliance when the time comes, yes?

Nah, he has a pretty misinformed conception of "the left" as a bunch of radical liberals. He's a smart guy but he's clearly done next to zero actual reading on the Left.

Go to >>>/fascist/ they love that dude there

Attached: Djn4Ri6XoAEeZlF.jpg large.jpg (1124x628, 77.99K)

Attached: Land_On_Ted.png (593x394, 43.31K)

Why is this bumplocked?