Chronicles in Climate Socialism - More Fun in Building the Orwellian State.

[maxparrish]

For those familiar with the ideological wars of the 1960s you might recall that one of the unwelcome questions from a conservative to a left combatant was asking how far he/she would go. In particular, WF Buckley often asked his guests on Firing Line, "given a forced choice between socialism and democracy which would you choose"? Sincere communists and fellow travelers had no trouble answering...socialism! They would tell you that economic development of a backward nation required the marshalling of great resources, and a firm leadership to "build socialism"...to industrialize the state. Left fellow travelers would be equally as bold, suggesting that "for historic Russia" the the path to progress and economic justice demanded hardship and sacrifice - "a new order of social relations cannot be made with sweetness and light."

Besides, the Reds and fellow travelers would justify "Bourgeois democracy is merely a means to capitalist class ends, and serves no other purpose." (Less crude fellow travelers, in the tradition of Sartre, would tell you that in any case bourgeois freedom does not exist and was an illusion). But, rest assured, Red socialism offered "a new form of democracy", a society of "new humanism."

So with authoritarian left roots like this, what could go wrong? Well, it looks like left Climate Change scientist alarmists have finally drank the Koolaid. Frustrated by decades of political opposition, the new "Red" mantra is don't let democracy get in the way: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/full/526323a.html

Climate change: Climate justice more vital than democracy

Decision-making based on social-justice principles could be more effective than democratic efforts against climate change.

Democratic decision-making involves multiple stakeholders, and democracy emphasizes the mutual roles of actors: all preferences are treated as equal. In many regions of the world, however, the results of democratic choices can be strongly influenced by power relations and inequitable social arrangements, owing to differences in economic development, access to technology and knowledge.

Elites may use democratic processes to entrench their status or encroach on other social goals. This can lead to incremental or undesirable results, which might explain why large democratic nations such as the United States continue to oppose progressive climate legislation.

In our view, sound climate and energy planning should not treat all stakeholders in the same way. Instead, preferences and roles should be weighted to consider criteria related to equity, due process, ethics and other justice principles. This would ensure that stakeholder discussions and resulting policies serve to eradicate, rather than exacerbate, socio-economic vulnerability to a changing climate. ... by: Jingzheng Ren, Michael Evan Goodsite, University of Southern Denmark; Benjamin K. Sovacool, Aarhus University, Denmark.

And their opinion is increasingly a part of the climate left discourse:

Several environmental authors now argue openly that democracy itself is the obstacle and needs to be abandoned. A year ago a senior fellow emeritus at Britain's Policy Studies Institute, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, told a reporter, "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This [rationing] has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not." (Hillman openly advocates resource rationing.) Another recent self-explanatory book is The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy by Australians David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith. Shearman argued recently that

[l]iberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the U.S.A., unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens.... There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties.

Whom does Shearman admire as an example of environmental governance to be emulated? China, precisely because of its authoritarian government: "[T]he savvy Chinese rulers may be first out of the blocks to assuage greenhouse emissions and they will succeed by delivering orders.... We are going to have to look at how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions." Separately, Shearman has written: ...

- See more at: http://www.claremont.org/article/all-the-leaves-are-brown/#sthash.ydV7JCCl.dpuf

You knew it was coming...all repeatedly frustrated left social movements end up on this side of the totalitarian impulse. It's never "if" it is "when".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.claremont.org/page/claremonts-mission/

The mission of the Claremont Institute is to teach the practical application of the principles of the American Founding to the next generation of Conservative leaders, and to build them into a community dedicated to preserving constitutional government.

http://www.claremont.org/page/strategic-litigation/

Restoring the Founders’ Constitution

The usual conservolibertarian claptrap.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.claremont.org/page/claremonts-mission/



http://www.claremont.org/page/strategic-litigation/

Restoring the Founders’ Constitution

The usual conservolibertarian claptrap.

It didn't seem that the authors quoted - Jingzheng Ren, Michael Evan Goodsite, University of Southern Denmark; Benjamin K. Sovacool, Aarhus University, Denmark, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, David Shearman or Joseph Wayne Smith were "conservo-libertarians" pushing claptrap.

Nor was I aware that nature magazine was "conservo-libertarian".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.claremont.org/page/claremonts-mission/



http://www.claremont.org/page/strategic-litigation/



The usual conservolibertarian claptrap.

It didn't seem that the authors quoted - Jingzheng Ren, Michael Evan Goodsite, University of Southern Denmark; Benjamin K. Sovacool, Aarhus University, Denmark, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, David Shearman or Joseph Wayne Smith were "conservo-libertarians" pushing claptrap.

Nor was I aware that nature magazine was "conservo-libertarian".

Did I link to the Nature article?

 

[TSwizzle]

You knew it was coming...all repeatedly frustrated left social movements end up on this side of the totalitarian impulse. It's never "if" it is "when".

The idiots in Sacramento are racing down this road at breakneck speed.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

1. This is a study from some researchers in Denmark.
2. There's no evidence this will be put into practice, especially considering not much has been done to combat climate change to begin with, and I don't expect anything to be done any time soon.
3. If democracy is going to be suspended, it's not going to be because someone read some study.

 

[maxparrish]

It didn't seem that the authors quoted - Jingzheng Ren, Michael Evan Goodsite, University of Southern Denmark; Benjamin K. Sovacool, Aarhus University, Denmark, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, David Shearman or Joseph Wayne Smith were "conservo-libertarians" pushing claptrap.

Nor was I aware that nature magazine was "conservo-libertarian".

Did I link to the Nature article?

No, I did. And you ignored it to go after my other link.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Did I link to the Nature article?

No, I did. And you ignored it to go after my other link.

 

[Frikki]

Restoring the Founders’ Constitution

They want to bring back slavery?

 

[ksen]

You knew it was coming...all repeatedly frustrated left social movements end up on this side of the totalitarian impulse. It's never "if" it is "when".

The idiots in Sacramento are racing down this road at breakneck speed.

You mean the elected representatives of the people of California?

 

[TSwizzle]

The idiots in Sacramento are racing down this road at breakneck speed.

You mean the elected representatives of the people of California?

52 nitwits.

 

[ksen]

You mean the elected representatives of the people of California?

52 nitwits.

So it is being done through the democratic process.

 

[TSwizzle]

52 nitwits.

So it is being done through the democratic process.

I never said it wasn't being done through the democratic process. 52 nitwits voted for it is what I actually said. But I'm sure you know this.

De Leon and Brown, two dumb fuckers if there ever was.

 

[ksen]

So it is being done through the democratic process.

I never said it wasn't being done through the democratic process. 52 nitwits voted for it is what I actually said. But I'm sure you know this.

What I know is that you quoted max talking about it always ending being totalitarian and saying that's what California is doing even though things are being pushed through a democratically elected legislature which is the opposite of what max was claiming.

 

[TSwizzle]

I never said it wasn't being done through the democratic process. 52 nitwits voted for it is what I actually said. But I'm sure you know this.

What I know is that you quoted max talking about it always ending being totalitarian and saying that's what California is doing even though things are being pushed through a democratically elected legislature which is the opposite of what max was claiming.

Hitler was democratically elected right ? So it's all good.

 

[ksen]

Hitler

I win!

 

[TSwizzle]

Hitler

I win!

Yeah for you !

Now jog on.

 

[Valjean]

I wish the right wing would quit equating socialism with Soviet totalitarianism. All "societies" are social to varying extents.
If large groups are to live together, some concessions to others' interests must be made. If you can achieve a degree of co-operation and mutual aid, all the better.
Socialism isn't tyranny, it's family values writ large -- all for one, one for all. Everyone wins.

Now, "the authoritarian left?" Holy projection, Batman! Google search "Right Wing Authoritarianism" or "authoritarian personality" and see which end of the political spectrum tends to exhibit Altemeyer's RWA attitudinal cluster.
The association of authoritarianism with political conservatism and the right wing has been clearly demonstrated in countless studies over the past 60 or 70 years.

 

[maxparrish]

I wish the right wing would quit equating socialism with Soviet totalitarianism. All "societies" are social to varying extents.

If large groups are to live together, some concessions to others' interests must be made. If you can achieve a degree of co-operation and mutual aid, all the better.

Socialism isn't tyranny, it's family values writ large -- all for one, one for all. Everyone wins.

Now, "the authoritarian left?" Holy projection, Batman! Google search "Right Wing Authoritarianism" or "authoritarian personality" and see which end of the political spectrum tends to exhibit Altemeyer's RWA attitudinal cluster.
The association of authoritarianism with political conservatism and the right wing has been clearly demonstrated in countless studies over the past 60 or 70 years.

I know you wish the better informed right wing would quit making the "birds of a feather" comparisons, but you have not offered a reason why such comparisons are not instructive. The self-identified liberal, progressive, radical, ultra-leftist, and communist all share certain core social values and goals in common. Their "rationales" for these values and goals are nearly identical, couched in the same humanist terms. The role of the State, the transformation of voluntary social relationships into involuntary State directed associations is the same. The assumption that "the state" or "collective" or "societal" needs outweigh the needs or wants of the individual is shared. The worship of centralization and planned societies is compatible.

If you don't know the history of the American (and international) Left, you cannot understand their commonalities; the crusading spirit for broad social reforms, the demand for class (and gender, racial) equality of outcome, the belief in using government to impose a noble end and, eventually, the liberation of people to their material needs through collectivization of the fruits of production.

My formative years of political development occured in a highly ideological age - the sixties and early seventies (I like to say it died with the birth of disco, not quite true but sounds good). I argued with the new left, was subjected to numerioius "conversion" attempts by my best friends left-wing McGovernite parents, lectured to by peer university red diaper babies, and read of and studied every liberal and/or new left bromide of the era. I was tutored that communists were just extreme liberals, folks with good intentions but only driven by the right-wing to use unsavory means...unlike "wise" liberals who wanted gradual change so Americans can become more like Russia and Russia evolve to meet halfway to become more like Americans.

Of course there are differences. Real Communists and revolutionary socialists have a formal political philosophy, and a clear sighted faith in Marxism (and usually Leninism). Their philosophy is/was formal and comprehensive - politics, sociology, literature, and economics. American liberals and progressives are less comfortable with a real political philosophy, some rejecting labels. When they are attracted to theory, it is only through to incoherent jargon of post modernism, feminism, and lit crit. But in the end, they are little more than a bundle of shop worn slogans, confused egalitarianism, and cynical views of "the others" motives sharing the same avowed goals of the hard left and die-hard communists.

The American liberal's stuporous instinct for "there ought to be a law,” and that every social problem should be solved by the magic power of brute force and the love of collectivism, is not unlike that of Communists and others of the ultra-left.

"Socialism isn't tyranny, it's family values writ large -- all for one, one for all."...sounds like the promise of every socialism I've heard of, including the kind dumped by Eastern Europe.

Own it.