I quite literally answered it in the same comment you’re replying to:

Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine’s arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.

War is not “take XYZ land and then you’ve got it,” it’s a battle between two powers. Even if your goal is to annex certain territory, in this case the four Oblasts that Russia has made clear it intends in taking, taking land outside of the four Oblasts weakens Ukraine’s ability to launch counteroffensives and stage troops. It does not mean Russia will keep every bit of land they take. Further, it also gives Russia leverage in treaties.

This is incredibly simple and I’m astounded that you’re making me repeat this in ever-simpler terms.

I think pretty much all socialists are ecological at the same time these days, so I’m not sure what identifying yourself as a degrowth communist adds, kinda like calling yourself a pro-LGBTQIA+ communist or an anticapitalist communist. Lemmy.ml is more than fine for you, I’d say, many will probably have similar issues with specifically aligning with degrowth as I did though.

You keep claiming that there are “physical limits,” which isn’t a magic spell. Of course there are physical limits, I’m not unaware of it. The problem with degrowth is that in an effort to not spend resources on improving efficiency and developing in a green direction, it counterintuitively costs more to the environment to try to keep present level technology and produce less. You inevitably end up in a Malthusian direction, turning to eco-fascism.

Yes, production of useless waste like fast fashion can and should end. Yes, much of what we produce is wasted and this must be eliminated. This is where I can align with degrowth. However, the idea that we need to work smaller and smaller rather than larger and more efficiently is where the math loses out for Degrowth.

Here’s a handy example. For socialists, replacing cars with solar powered trains dramatically reduces emissions while improving transport and lowering resource cost. Degrowth doesn’t take this position, though. Degrowth tries to lower present output without building onto newer. This is the trap. We can all agree on cutting out the bullshit, but the answer isn’t to try to strip back what we already do.

This is why degrowth leads to ecofascism. With present output and methods, we are unsustainable headed to disaster. People do not want to lower their lifestyles significantly, yet for degrowth to work it needs a population collapse. This leads to Malthusian politics and a desire to eliminate large portions of humanity to live current lifestyles in a more sustainable manner.

The problem is, that doesn’t even work. Killing off huge portions of humanity would still lead to collapse at present technology, without advancing it. People will inevitably advance, and grow again, and this time the world will well and truly end for Humanity.

I do agree that I’m more optimistic, but I also believe I am more realistic.

I’ve already answered, though. Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine’s arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.

I’m aware that advancements also elevate living standards. However, your conception of this necessitating destruction of the environment is incorrect, and this is not at all the same as capitalism’s incessant drive towards accumulation. Degrowth as a focus is the wrong approach, advanced technology like developed rail systems actually save the environment more than car-centric infrastructure. We have to advance further to protect the environment, and combine that with climate-focuses approaches, not slow our advancement and stick with small-scale production, which is less environmentally efficient.

Degrowth is a trap. Environmentalist socialism is necessary, and is the actual way to protect and preserve the environment. Socialism will end fast fashion, incessant trinket production, and more that currently only serve to accelerate capital accumulation, while advancing technology that is more environmentally efficient.

It’s really as simple as this.

The “need motive” is not what you think it is. There is not an imperitive to endlessly expand. I am not treating scientific planning like it can bypass thermodynamics, that is a strawman. Profit doesn’t just change distribution, it changes production, because profit needs more sales. This creates new demand that then is fulfilled, this is the basics of why socialist ecology is necessary.

Again, the “need motive” does not have the same endless feedback loop that the profit motive does.

How so? The US Empire is fascist.

The reason for overproduction is because the profit motive requires the sale of as many commodities as possible. Socialism essentially means we can scientifically plan production and distribution, meaning we aren’t constrained by this any longer. As for the bits you are talking about like fast fashion, planned obsolescence, and the military industrial complex, we aren’t at odds here, these are products of capitalism and the profit motive.

Advancement is not a “culture.” It is a historical process. You are confusing the problems of capitalism to be problems of culture, and not material conditions, which leads to errors in judgment. All environmentalism going forward requires socialism as a basis, which will end overconsumption because the base of overconsumption is overproduction for sale of commodities.

Communist ecology does not ignore the material limits of reality, that’s a strawman. Advancing recycling, renewable materials, renewable energy sources, all of it requires more advanced technology, but can be done in a fashion that does not harm the environment. My point is that degrowth does not work, and actually works against the capabilities of advanced ecology. We need to advance onto socialism as quickly as possible so as to end overconsumption and overproduction, but we should not try to freeze where we are at.

I guess what I am trying to say is that advancement does not mean endless production, and large industry does not mean overproduction and overconsumption.

Developing and advancing does not mean continuing consumerism. The overproduction of cheap plastic goods and planned obsolescence are purely problems of capital, not socialism. We can develop more intelligently, without relying on a system that requires production of endless trinkets at the destruction of the environment. Extraction will not end, sure, but it can be done more intelligently, and it can be minimized.

Historical socialism has faced numerous problems due to lack of development. They didn’t simply develop to compete, but because the basis of socialism is in large industry. We cannot freeze history at a communalist level where we are hunter/gatherers, we have to advance to socialism so that we can actually intelligently solve problems leading to climate change and environmental destruction, rather than having capitalism ensure it is destroyed.

Communist ecology is a wide field, and you’d do well to study it.

Meanwhile, the top court of China is taking an affirmative stance that gender and sexuality must be protected characteristics. China is moving forward, not backwards, with respect to queer representation. Meanwhile, many western countries are falling.

Changing from the profit motive to a planned economy dramatically changes how and why human development is steered. Socialism of course will advance production, but it ends consumerism, and having humans over capital means we can decide to have a more harmonious impact on the environment. Profit makes this pretty much impossible, as capital is a control system for accumulation.

Yep, metaphysicians in particular make the mistake of abstracting away essential context, and it leads to misconceptions and faulty understanding. Good luck!

I think you’re confusing the profit motive with development. Accumulation of capital is what drives endless expansion and overconsumption. Socialism is necessary to stop that cycle, as rather than profit, suiting the needs of humanity becomes the goal.

Interesting thoughts, and nice talking to you too! Abstraction isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s indeed incredibly easy to have bad abstraction that obfuscates reality.

Nice racism on your part, very western of you. Sorry, but I’m a westerner too, and much of this has already been admitted by western press.

The west admitted to helping the Banderites overthrow the democratically elected president of Ukraine, and said Banderites started ethnically repressing Russians living in Eastern Ukraine.

As for NATO, NATO is an inter-imperialist anti-revolutionary coalition force. It’s “defensive” like the IDF is. The soviets weren’t a threat to Western Europe, and neither is the Russian Federation, yet the imperialists in Europe and the US needed to contain socialism to prevent it from spreading and threatening their super-profits.

It was the west that backed a Banderite coup in 2014, sparking the Ukrainian Civil War. NATO has been encircling Russia for the greater part of a century at this point.

That’s a good point, regarding the abstract nature of Gramsci’s work. It’s similar to Marx and Engels in that sense. Gramsci is a difficult one, like you brought up he’s often used in reactionary and cynical ways, despite being very supportive of existing socialism.

Do you think in war you only attack what you directly plan on taking?