Evo Morales 'blames' GM food for "sexual deviations" such as homosexuality

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 27 2010 02:01

TBF it doesn't really prove anything in itself.

Far more importantly, both regimes have used violence and repression against organising workers (Morales has sent the army in, Chavez has imprisoned them in their thousands). I can't comment much on Morales, but chavismo is "state capitalism for the 21st century". wink

circle A-K's picture
circle A-K
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Apr 27 2010 04:41
tsi wrote:
I didn't read anyone above as doing this.

Didn't say anyone was.

I'll re-phrase - when we talk of developments in GM tech etc. (as JRCash was doing) we are always talking in the background context of a capitalist society and how this effects the expression, growth and implementation of this technology - or at least we should be (this awareness was missing from JRCash's post IMO - in favour of a general swipe at GM 'critics').

I wasn't suggesting that anyone here supported Monsanto et al (though i do know a fellow on RevLeft - another communist discussion forum - who does, though he is a 'marxist' fan of Spike magazine); but that the 'issue' of GM food should not be a debate about it's scientific or nutritional benefits only.

tsi wrote:
I think it is perfectly sensible for communists to point out that the "problems with GMO food" are attributable to capitalism and not GMO food in principle.

The 'problems' with GM food are not limited to capitalist-use

Of course, in the main the concerns with GM food are largely rooted in our present society - but there are other risks with GM food that need to be carefully considered and managed - by any society - effects on biodiversity etc. that were mentioned previously are real and not dependant on capitalism at all. Quite simply, GM crops can have unforeseen consequences on local ecosystems (given the complexity of the natural systems and species interaction). That isn't an argument against GM, but for a cautious, measured, and well researched approach.

tsi wrote:
It is likewise sensible to distance this statement from anti-science hippie nonsense.

Sensible maybe, but unnecessary here- where are the hippies in this thread? It was a needlessly provocative statement that seemed to tar any critics of GM food as anti-science 'hippies'.

Dev wrote:
What I was trying to say is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of genetically modifying food.

Inherently no, not with the idea - but there are real concerns with it's impact when implemented so i am simply advising caution and research - particularly before endorsing any science produced by stakeholders like Monsanto; a reasonable position IMO.

Dev wrote:
I also objected to the idea that somebody stating this would be physically attacked.

Yes of course, physically attacking other coms for political differences is not on.

Dev wrote:
Of course the prime motivation behind this technology is not to 'solve world hunger', but to make money. That is the nature of capitalism. Nor do I think that Monsanto will use it in anyway to benefit the peasantry. I take it as a given that they will use it to make money from the peasantry and try to screw them as much as possible.

The 'infertile seeds' trick is up their with things such as companies producing with built in obsolescence, which is why for example Gillette owns the patent to the diamond filament razor blade, and you won't be seeing it in your shops soon.

Indeed.

Dev wrote:
Is it damaging the environment? Quite probably.

Is it the only thing doing it? Certainly not.

Is it the largest thing doing it? Personally I doubt it. There are a lot of bad things going on out there.

So it is bad for the environment and the peasantry are getting screwed. What makes this issue special. Many things, for example gold mining, have the same effects, but we don't see people going on about that all the time, do we?

What makes this issue special, say in comparison to the effects, risks, social impact of gold mining etc. is that we do not eat gold! tongue

The difference is that this issue concerns potential risks to the long-term food security of billions of people. IMO this issue alongside clean water and water resource management should be key concerns as they are paramount to our survival.

Also things like mining have direct and easily measurable/predictable impacts - genetic modification is an inherently more complex issue.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Apr 28 2010 09:32

I have not replied up until now because, living in the country, I do not have either wifi or a land phone line at my place, so my internet connections are a little sporadic. A friend suggested libcom as a discussion forum which could be interesting for me to participate in – but I was already having regrets, given the frighteningly reactionary and complacent attitude of the vast majority of the posts here, until the contributions of Nyarlathotep, RetMarut and of Circle A-K made me feel that continued participation might be worthwhile. Some of what I write here has already been covered by them, but I repeat it, because I look at it from a slightly different angle.

The reason I wrote that people expressing JRCashcrop’s pro-GMO crap would risk being physically attacked (though usually the violence would be verbal), is that here in France, at least amongst those who try to oppose this society, emotions are high, and for good reason. Such a pro-GMO attitude would clearly put someone on the side of the State and of bourgeois science and on the side of the destruction of biodiversity; it would be siding with capitalism in sending to prison such people as Jose Bove and Rene Riesel (whatever you might think of these people, their attack on GMOs was as basic as going on strike); it would be siding with the violence of this society, not with those who hate it. It would be like siding with scabs in a strike. This has nothing to do with what Jef Costello wrote:

Quote:
Seriously I think you are overreacting to JR's post and the idea that anyone would be attacked for suggesting the use of GMO is sadly true (but only in the rarest of cases and generally by people who call themselves anarchists and socialists but have no interest in actual communism) but that you would endorse that is also idiotic.

“Communism is the real movement that abolishes the existing order of things”, as Marx said, and to a certain extent the destruction of GMOs has been part of this movement. If emotions are high here in France it is not because of some French Latin passion, but because people are conscious of the dangerous effects of the destruction of biodiversity and of the use of cancer-inducing polluants used on fertilizer-resistant GMOs. This simple knowledge seems to be absent among the so-called consciousness of the proletariat like Devrim or any of the others who ask “what is all the fuss about?”.
As for Jef Costello’s pathetic insular comment:

Quote:
I also think that violence should be reserved for people that we actually are oppose to ideologically rather than people we disagree with. For a clique to threaten one person from deviating from the 'party line' is pathetic and insular.

The people coming out with pro-GMO statements IS ideological in the most reactionary way . They are supporting the violence of this society. It is never a question of “one person” but always of the dominant society’s “party line” – such people are the most conformist and not at all “deviating”. He has got everything the wrong way round. Nor did I say the violence would be that of a clique against one person: it could equally be that of one radical against a clique, assuming the person had a chance of getting away without too much injury. In the name of some silly libertarian ‘openness’ one could debate with fascists because if you do not you are just being a clique with a pathetic insular party line. And yet the party line is his – notice how often he says ‘we’ – who is this ‘we’? Not me or a lot of other people.

Jef Costelo also said:

Quote:
This does not mean that I think after the revolution we won't have toothpaste, or red meat or or fly kites or any number of activities that currently exist.

But GMOs are not at all like toothpaste, kites and red meat. The latter do not have the same utterly destructive effects as GMOs – it is like saying that there is nothing wrong with massive aerial bombardment in itself, just its capitalist use. And it is like comparing toothpaste, kites and meat with aerial bombardment. And aerial bombardment is not as irreversible as GMOs. It is a spurious argument, typical of those who like to play politics , like Caiman del Barrio; it ignores everything that Circle AK and RetMarut here in this thread have clearly said. And he knows it. He is making everything an equivalent. The inability to make distinctions is actually typical of commodity thinking – everything and everyone gets reduced to the same abstraction. Devrim’s comment is similar. His comparison of GMOs with razor blades and gold mining – both things that are not really essential or intrinsic to the survival of humanity - with such things as seeds and plants and food, things that are absolutely essential for human beings, is indicative of this commodity logic. As Marx almost put it: w amount of razor blades = x amount of gold = y amount of seeds = z amounts of plants…the logic of reducing everything to equivalents; and this from someone who, as far as I know, claims to be a Marxist.

Caiman del Barrio wrote:

Quote:
GerryK wrote:
Quote:
I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

That's my favourite part of the post. Women are incapable of doing abstract thought.

To translate my “relatively few women are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish” into, “Women are incapable of doing abstract thought.” is a distortion of my opinion in order to dismiss what I say. A typical political tactic – Chavez and Morales and all the others do the same kind of distortion; so do traditional couples when they argue. Though clearly the social significance of such silly arguments is different, what they have in common is that it is a method of maintaining separations, confusion, lies and the idea that you are always right. The tendency (and a tendency which feminism, insofar as it accepts present society, is destroying) of women, because of their different experiences of alienation, to see things in terms of practical consequences has at least the advantage that GMOs would be seen in terms of their consequences and not according to the abstract fantasy that JRCashcrop expresses. Science is not neutral or unproblematically ‘progressive’ and never has been. Any more than all the other aspects of the division of labour. And today, less than ever.
Tsi wrote:

Quote:
It is true that science and technology will be linked to the imperatives of capital for as long as capitalism survives. If there is any value for a communist perspective on any of this it is in critiquing this relationship, not denouncing individual products of science in the service of capital.

But it is a typical ideological method to think that what is important is just the commodity form and not its content (or vice versa). Individual products may very well be quite different when given a communist use, and in some cases completely abolished. The nuclear bomb or the concentration camp can never have a communist use, for example; factories, universities and other buildings, when occupied without having a use in the production of commodities or people as commodities, are rapidly transformed; in some cases they are burnt down – in Bangladesh, for example. GMOs, for all the reasons outlined by me, Circle AK, Ret Marut and Nyarlathotep, must be destroyed, and are by loads of different people.

Devrim also writes:

Quote:
Man has been genetically modifying foods since the agricultural revolution. There is nothing wrong in the idea itself.

This is like saying, “13 year olds have been losing their virginity since before the agricultural revolution. There’s nothing wrong in the idea itself” in order to justify gang-raping 13 year old virgins. Sure, the impersonal nature and the social acceptabilty of the rape of the planet make GMOs seem less violent than gang rape, but an element of clear-thinking would make anybody realize that the effect and trauma of GMOs will be, and for some already is, far worse than the gang rape of a 13 year old. Circle AK replied to Devrim correctly, so there is no need to repeat the argument, though I feel he is somewhat too nice in his reply, as if arguing coolly and unemotionally with all the people who’ve not questioned the dominant bullshit will somehow effect them. It is for this reason that he dismisses the idea that I should feel violently towards “coms” who justify the violence of this society, as if someone saying they are a communist somehow makes them one (and JRCashcrop is such a “com” that he has communicated nothing since his initial brain-dead post). Anger might move them a bit more in a “communist” direction, particularly if several people express their anger. What is truly amazing is that so-called ‘revolutionaries’ do not feel any shame in coming out with the same propaganda as Monsanto and all the other nauseating ideologists for the commodity’s destruction of life on the planet in the name of saving people.

It seems ridiculous to have to contest so many things that are so stupid, so expressive of dominant nonsense, that it stops any serious development of an attack on this society. It is like having to constantly argue that beating up children is wrong . I do not think anyone who has called themselves ‘revolutionary’ has ever justified such nastiness. If you have to argue about such basics, you can never develop anything more advanced. But nowadays dominant ideology is so powerful that even those who claim to oppose this society do not notice their sickness after swallowing so many of the basic lies. Despite all the rational evidence against GMOs, the majority of people on this thread justify them, justify something worse than brutal attacks on children. And it is me who Capricorn portrays as the ‘con’ (pratt). In the spectacle of opposition everything is upside down.

People on libcom talk a lot about “debate”. When I was 14 at school we used to say, “Lets have a debate. Lets have a big debate. Lets have a mass debate” (if you say it out loud, the meaning becomes clear). Talk is cheap – such ‘theory’ has nothing to do with practical consequences, except in your collective head. After massdebation the illusion of contact evaporates, the ideological fantasies have gone, leaving you alone, separate, still dissatisfied, and nothing has changed. Arguments without consequences do not help develop a revolution – often they help develop a social attitude that is very useful for capital: its counter-revolutionary “reasonableness”, as if anger, other than anger in defence of the roles and lies of this society, is something that has to be confined to anger management sessions, controlled by lithium or the shrink. Just because such “reasonableness” is given some revolutionary language, doesn’t mean it is any less accepting of reification, of inhumanity. From even before WWl we have seen how the most reactionary politics has been couched in Marxist or anarchist or socialist phraseology. Mussolini, Noske, Stalin, etc. all used ‘subversive’ language to help develop particularly brutal forms of capitalism. If those genuinely wanting a non-hierarchical society without wage slavery and the State had theoretically and practically attacked these scum when their political machinations and demagogy had become apparent (as they already had before the great capitalist massacre of WWI) the world working class might well have had a better chance of avoiding the massacre of WWII, the result of the defeat of the period 1917 – 1921. Almost 100 years later, I would have hoped people had begun to learn such lessons and refuse to have anything to do with people whose words appear to be ‘communist’ but who justify, in both words and acts, the insanity of many of the fundamental aspects of the commodity economy. Better someone who has no pretensions to radicality than such contributors to confusion, the conmen. They really are 'cons'.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Apr 28 2010 09:38

Btw I forgot tarwater's racist/nationalist comment - why is this acceptable on libcom? If he had implied that I am Jewish &/or lesbian &/or black &/or handicapped &/or transvestite &/or transexual &/or from Transylvania and that for these reasons I should be treated with ridicule, would the administrators of libcom have accepted this?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 28 2010 10:31
Quote:
though I feel he is somewhat too nice in his reply, as if arguing coolly and unemotionally with all the people who’ve not questioned the dominant bullshit will somehow effect them.

Actually, it made me listen and think about it more than your ranting, distortions, insults, and name calling have, which really have completely turned me off discussing it with you.

Devrim

tsi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Apr 28 2010 10:40
Quote:
But it is a typical ideological method to think that what is important is just the commodity form and not its content (or vice versa). Individual products may very well be quite different when given a communist use, and in some cases completely abolished. The nuclear bomb or the concentration camp can never have a communist use, for example; factories, universities and other buildings, when occupied without having a use in the production of commodities or people as commodities, are rapidly transformed; in some cases they are burnt down – in Bangladesh, for example. GMOs, for all the reasons outlined by me, Circle AK, Ret Marut and Nyarlathotep, must be destroyed, and are by loads of different people.

Yes, the content of many products is bad or unsuitable for communist use. Most GMOs currently on the market, and most that would likely be developed by capitalist society in the future, probably fall into this category.

I still fail to see how this should translate into opposition to genetically modified foods in principle rather than opposition to capitalism.

I also fail to see any reasonable justification for the vitriolic nature of your posts.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
Apr 28 2010 11:22
GerryK wrote:
The reason I wrote that people expressing JRCashcrop’s pro-GMO crap would risk being physically attacked (though usually the violence would be verbal), is that here in France, at least amongst those who try to oppose this society, emotions are high, and for good reason. Such a pro-GMO attitude would clearly put someone on the side of the State and of bourgeois science and on the side of the destruction of biodiversity; it would be siding with capitalism in sending to prison such people as Jose Bove and Rene Riesel (whatever you might think of these people, their attack on GMOs was as basic as going on strike); it would be siding with the violence of this society, not with those who hate it. It would be like siding with scabs in a strike.

What pathetic nonsense. You ask for debate on something and then insist that people would or should be physically attacked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest siding with the state or "bourgeois science". There is no such thing as bourgeois science. There is science and then there is the use that science is put to. Obviously in a captialist state science will be employed in the pursuit of profit before need and before sustainable development.

The point that I was making is that human development in a non capitalist society should not be constrained by scare tactics and half truths about be pros or cons of particular scientific advancements. Decisions should be based on proven scientific facts. If it can be shown that GM can be used in some form safely in a way that out weighs any negative effects then it should be considered. If it is proven otherwise and the risks out weigh the benefits then it should not be used.

Your knee jerk reaction is typical of many so called anarchists when their holy cows of ill thought out liberal views are challenged.

You stated that expressing the view that I expressed was akin to strike breaking. This simply shows just how far up your own arse your head is if you genuinely believe this to be true. And as for Jose Bove and Rene Riesel they are a couple of twats who attacked a GM research crop and I have no problem stating that I don't support that.

Fortunately I would hope that you aren't "physically attacked" for expressing your opinion. But I suppose that is where we differ.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 28 2010 19:41
JR Cash wrote:
And as for Jose Bove and Rene Riesel they are a couple of twats who attacked a GM research crop and I have no problem stating that I don't support that.

Agreed, entirely. Going to jail for trashing GM crops is something that has no place on Libcom. Especially not amongst the mods. wink

GerryK - your tone is not conducive to discussion. Your original comments were ridiculously hyperbolic, which is why you've been dragged into shit creek trying to defend them in your second post. Your tactic of continuing to hurl vitriol isn't helping. The comment I quoted is still absurd and borderline sexist.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Nyarlathotep
Offline
Joined: 26-04-10
Apr 28 2010 23:49
JR Cash wrote:
You ask for debate on something and then insist that people would or should be physically attacked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Oh well, it's the Internet, take it less seriously...

Quote:
Nowhere in my post did I suggest siding with the state or "bourgeois science". There is no such thing as bourgeois science. There is science and then there is the use that science is put to. Obviously in a captialist state science will be employed in the pursuit of profit before need and before sustainable development.

Science is empirical observation of the universe.
What most men call "science" is actually an ideology of liberal-capitalist control.
GM crops are a product of the latters' efforts to increase commodity production at the expense of the greater health of the ecology.

Quote:
human development in a non capitalist society should not be constrained by...

Social revolution is the immediate practical implementation of human development through the destruction of capitalist society. This requires certain specific material sacrifices...for example, we will have to abandon GMO crops for the development of humanity, because if we become dependent on such agricultural tactics the catastrophic cost in human lives and suffering will be greater in the long run than if we abandon it now.

Quote:
scare tactics and half truths about be pros or cons of particular scientific advancements.

You yourself have provided no scholastic evidence for your claims about nuclear power, GMO crops, petrochemical fertilizers, and so on....

Quote:
Decisions should be based on proven scientific facts.

So make some citations....

Quote:
If it can be shown that GM can be used in some form safely in a way that out weighs any negative effects[/quot then it should be considered. If it is proven otherwise and the risks out weigh the benefits then it should not be used.

Subjectivist qualifications...

Quote:
liberal views

More useless ad hominem...

Quote:
And as for Jose Bove and Rene Riesel they are a couple of twats who attacked a GM research crop and I have no problem stating that I don't support that.

Even if I held the incoherent notion that GMO crop production will be continued after the hypothetical global revolution against capitalism, I would still support those who attack against capitalist research and development firms. This is typical social-democratic/social-pacifist cowardice disguised as ultra-left posturing...

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Apr 28 2010 23:59
GerryK wrote:
A friend suggested libcom as a discussion forum which could be interesting for me to participate in – but I was already having regrets, given the frighteningly reactionary and complacent attitude of the vast majority of the posts here, until the contributions of Nyarlathotep, RetMarut and of Circle A-K made me feel that continued participation might be worthwhile....

The reason I wrote that people expressing JRCashcrop’s pro-GMO crap would risk being physically attacked (though usually the violence would be verbal), is that here in France, at least amongst those who try to oppose this society, emotions are high, and for good reason. Such a pro-GMO attitude would clearly put someone on the side of the State and of bourgeois science and on the side of the destruction of biodiversity; it would be siding with capitalism in sending to prison such people as Jose Bove and Rene Riesel (whatever you might think of these people, their attack on GMOs was as basic as going on strike); it would be siding with the violence of this society, not with those who hate it. It would be like siding with scabs in a strike.

Your mixture of hyperbole, personal insults, misrepresentation and stunning insensitivity to logic is the problem and makes me wonder whether you are a troll or simply an idiot. JR said that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that nuclear power and gm crops (both of which in pratise I think are a bad idea) could potentially be useful. This is a perfectly sensible post and your overreaction is bizarre.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with what Jef Costello wrote:
Quote:
Seriously I think you are overreacting to JR's post and the idea that anyone would be attacked for suggesting the use of GMO is sadly true (but only in the rarest of cases and generally by people who call themselves anarchists and socialists but have no interest in actual communism) but that you would endorse that is also idiotic.

“Communism is the real movement that abolishes the existing order of things”, as Marx said, and to a certain extent the destruction of GMOs has been part of this movement. If emotions are high here in France it is not because of some French Latin passion, but because people are conscious of the dangerous effects of the destruction of biodiversity and of the use of cancer-inducing polluants used on fertilizer-resistant GMOs. This simple knowledge seems to be absent among the so-called consciousness of the proletariat like Devrim or any of the others who ask “what is all the fuss about?”.

I didn't mention anything about passion, stop trying to smear me as some kind of nationalist and you haven't actually responded except by restating what we already knew. The use of GM crops under capitalism is ultimately not aimed at helping us, neither is anything under capitalism yet some things have improved.

Quote:
As for Jef Costello’s pathetic insular comment:
Quote:
I also think that violence should be reserved for people that we actually are oppose to ideologically rather than people we disagree with. For a clique to threaten one person from deviating from the 'party line' is pathetic and insular.

The people coming out with pro-GMO statements IS ideological in the most reactionary way . They are supporting the violence of this society. It is never a question of “one person” but always of the dominant society’s “party line” – such people are the most conformist and not at all “deviating”. He has got everything the wrong way round. Nor did I say the violence would be that of a clique against one person: it could equally be that of one radical against a clique, assuming the person had a chance of getting away without too much injury. In the name of some silly libertarian ‘openness’ one could debate with fascists because if you do not you are just being a clique with a pathetic insular party line. And yet the party line is his – notice how often he says ‘we’ – who is this ‘we’? Not me or a lot of other people.

Interesting that you repeat my adjectives while failing to understand my point, you even quote me to prove that you haven't understood. By insular I am referring to a movement that is only focussed on bullying people within it rather than actually reaching people outside of it. You also seem to be endorsing violence 'as long as you can get away with it' this is pathetic bullying tactics. How can you expect to discuss anything or to help people understand anything when you also think that you can attack them whenever you feel like it. You pick up on the word 'we' and try to write me off as some kind of conformist which is a greater leap than you managed when you smeared JR as 'pro-GMO' although equally idiotic.

Quote:
Jef Costelo also said:
Quote:
This does not mean that I think after the revolution we won't have toothpaste, or red meat or or fly kites or any number of activities that currently exist.

But GMOs are not at all like toothpaste, kites and red meat. The latter do not have the same utterly destructive effects as GMOs – it is like saying that there is nothing wrong with massive aerial bombardment in itself, just its capitalist use. And it is like comparing toothpaste, kites and meat with aerial bombardment. And aerial bombardment is not as irreversible as GMOs. It is a spurious argument, typical of those who like to play politics , like Caiman del Barrio; it ignores everything that Circle AK and RetMarut here in this thread have clearly said. And he knows it. He is making everything an equivalent. The inability to make distinctions is actually typical of commodity thinking – everything and everyone gets reduced to the same abstraction. Devrim’s comment is similar. His comparison of GMOs with razor blades and gold mining – both things that are not really essential or intrinsic to the survival of humanity - with such things as seeds and plants and food, things that are absolutely essential for human beings, is indicative of this commodity logic. As Marx almost put it: w amount of razor blades = x amount of gold = y amount of seeds = z amounts of plants…the logic of reducing everything to equivalents; and this from someone who, as far as I know, claims to be a Marxist.

Your reasoning is fairly specious.

GerryK logic wrote:
Under capitalism, people are alive, therefore being alive is wrong.

Instead of addressing my point you've made a ridiculous comparison, I've returned the favour.

Quote:
But it is a typical ideological method to think that what is important is just the commodity form and not its content (or vice versa). Individual products may very well be quite different when given a communist use, and in some cases completely abolished. The nuclear bomb or the concentration camp can never have a communist use, for example; factories, universities and other buildings, when occupied without having a use in the production of commodities or people as commodities, are rapidly transformed; in some cases they are burnt down – in Bangladesh, for example. GMOs, for all the reasons outlined by me, Circle AK, Ret Marut and Nyarlathotep, must be destroyed, and are by loads of different people.

More people vote here than have ever destroyed GM crops, don't use the fact that a few people do it to justify something, or else you might accidentally end up justifying capitalism. Unless you find some clever way of writing them off as not being real people.
I don't really think there's much meaning in your first paragraph, certainly not any to back up your point. The nuclear bomb and the concentration camp do not need to exist in a communist society but that doesn't mean that everything invented by capitalism is bad. Do you think the wars and murders etc committed in primitive societies were good things?

Quote:
Quote:
Man has been genetically modifying foods since the agricultural revolution. There is nothing wrong in the idea itself.

This is like saying, “13 year olds have been losing their virginity since before the agricultural revolution. There’s nothing wrong in the idea itself” in order to justify gang-raping 13 year old virgins. Sure, the impersonal nature and the social acceptabilty of the rape of the planet make GMOs seem less violent than gang rape, but an element of clear-thinking would make anybody realize that the effect and trauma of GMOs will be, and for some already is, far worse than the gang rape of a 13 year old. Circle AK replied to Devrim correctly, so there is no need to repeat the argument, though I feel he is somewhat too nice in his reply, as if arguing coolly and unemotionally with all the people who’ve not questioned the dominant bullshit will somehow effect them. It is for this reason that he dismisses the idea that I should feel violently towards “coms” who justify the violence of this society, as if someone saying they are a communist somehow makes them one (and JRCashcrop is such a “com” that he has communicated nothing since his initial brain-dead post). Anger might move them a bit more in a “communist” direction, particularly if several people express their anger. What is truly amazing is that so-called ‘revolutionaries’ do not feel any shame in coming out with the same propaganda as Monsanto and all the other nauseating ideologists for the commodity’s destruction of life on the planet in the name of saving people.

No it is not, you are making an emotive, ridiculous and frankly downright insulting analogy. You smear someone as a propagandist just for suggesting that there might be another viewpoint. You are the kind of coward that would have people killed 'for their own good'. Your arrogance in believing yourself to be infallible is only highlighted by your pseudo deference to 'indigenous people' personally I'd love to see you dumped in the woods stripped of all the trappings of civilisation. You'd be dead in hours. Douches like you alwys imagine that you'd be the one to survive in some primitive fantasy.

Quote:
It is like having to constantly argue that beating up children is wrong . I do not think anyone who has called themselves ‘revolutionary’ has ever justified such nastiness. If you have to argue about such basics, you can never develop anything more advanced. But nowadays dominant ideology is so powerful that even those who claim to oppose this society do not notice their sickness after swallowing so many of the basic lies. Despite all the rational evidence against GMOs, the majority of people on this thread justify them, justify something worse than brutal attacks on children.

What about children who don't think GMO products should be completely dismissed out of hand? Would you attack them as long as you thought that you could get away with it?

Quote:
People on libcom talk a lot about “debate”. When I was 14 at school we used to say, “Lets have a debate. Lets have a big debate. Lets have a mass debate”

You're talking about debate as cockwaving or competition. The idea of a discussion is to reach an answer which is what communists need to do.

Quote:
Arguments without consequences do not help develop a revolution – often they help develop a social attitude that is very useful for capital: its counter-revolutionary “reasonableness”, as if anger, other than anger in defence of the roles and lies of this society, is something that has to be confined to anger management sessions, controlled by lithium or the shrink. Just because such “reasonableness” is given some revolutionary language, doesn’t mean it is any less accepting of reification, of inhumanity.

You're the one that has had an angry and disproportionate reaction to someone simply suggesting keeping an open mind. I have insulted you in this post because you've made it clear that you are not interested in actually debating, just reacting ever more hysterically to people who disagree with you. (If you want to avoid addressing anything I've said you could pick out the word hysterical and try to smear me as a sexist)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Nyarlathotep
Offline
Joined: 26-04-10
Apr 29 2010 01:17
jef costello wrote:
JR said that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that nuclear power and gm crops (both of which in pratise I think are a bad idea) could potentially be useful.

The burden of positive proof lies on those who claim that practices could be "potentially useful" which you admit are "bad idea[s]". Until that time I will oppose them in practice.

Quote:
The use of GM crops under capitalism is ultimately not aimed at helping us, neither is anything under capitalism yet some things have improved.

I disagree, we must stand at any given point against the further valorization of capitalism, otherwise an anti-capitalist position is incoherent and irrational.

Quote:
More people vote here than have ever destroyed GM crops

Well thankfully the public opinion on the libcom forums is not the litmus test for deciding what is or is not a legitimate act of resistance.

Quote:
The nuclear bomb and the concentration camp do not need to exist in a communist society but that doesn't mean that everything invented by capitalism is bad.

Yes, however, you are saying "not everything invented by capitalism is bad" as a substitute for a positive argument which would demonstrate that one specific invention of capitalism is (at least theoretically) beneficial. Therefore, you have no rational argument.

Quote:
Do you think the wars and murders etc committed in primitive societies were good things?

No one is arguing for primitivism, so this is a strawman.

Quote:
and frankly downright insulting analogy.

It is not insulting to compare ecological degradation to rape.

Quote:
I'd love to see you dumped in the woods stripped of all the trappings of civilisation.

No one is arguing against civilization, only a specific product of industrial capitalism. Am I "anti-civilization" for also saying that nuclear weapons will not exist under communism?

Quote:
You'd be dead in hours. Douches like you alwys imagine that you'd be the one to survive in some primitive fantasy.

The wilderness survival skills of any given participant in this debate have no bearing on the rational validity of anyone's argument, unless we were arguing about different ways to treat a rattlesnake bite, nice try....

Quote:
What about children who don't think GMO products should be completely dismissed out of hand?

At least they have the excuse of being children...

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
May 3 2010 15:54

Thank you, Nyarlathotep for defending some of the essentials of my last post – a pleasant surprise amongst the dross (Circle A-K excepted). I will now explain and defend my attitudes in my own words, though this will cover some of what Ret Marut and the others have already said.

Let us look at JRCashcrop’s original post:

Quote:
There is no reason to suggest that we as a society cant over come any problems associated with GM foods.
Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

Since it is clear that GMOs and nuclear power as they exist are at the very least as bad as aerial bombardment and cluster bombs as they exist then I feel it might be useful to substitute the words “aerial bombardment” and “cluster bombs” instead of GMOs and nuclear power. Imagine him writing the following during the bombing of Iraq or now, just after, Obomber’s latest killings of innocents in Afghanistan:

“There is no reason to suggest that we as a society cant over come any problems associated with aerial bombardment.
Indeed the same can be said of cluster bombs. A safe and well managed arms program could have its place along side aerial bombardment in destroying the counter-revolutionary forces .
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to military science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new arms technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.”

I think , at best, he would be dismissed as a nutty professor caught up in abstractions; and I feel people could be forgiven if they thought he was trying to justify aerial bombardment and cluster bombs as they exist. It might one day be necessary to attack our enemies from the air; but no-one in their ultra left mind would write the above – apart from JRCashcrop and his defenders, it seems. One can only pose such questions abstractly if you consider communism to be something abstract, and not, as I said in quoting Marx, “the real movement that abolishes the existing order of things”.

Now let us look at his response to my posts:

Quote:
“Nowhere in my post did I suggest siding with the state or "bourgeois science". There is no such thing as bourgeois science. There is science and then there is the use that science is put to.”

This makes almost as much sense as saying “There is religion and the use tht religion is put to.” Science has always been put to the use of the ruling class or the would-be rulers from Aristotle onwards. This of course does not make it always devoid of any possible use, any more than the fact that culture has always been a force for conformism means we should automatically dismiss culture. I am not a primitivist – in fact, I consider primitivism as much an enemy of our struggle for freedom as most of the ideologies that consider science unproblematic, as expressed by those attacking me here. As I said in my original post (and which all the various caricatures of what I said have ignored, for the obvious reason that it does not conform to their idea that I am anti-science as such):
There is plenty of scientific research to show that GMOs reduce fertility and resistance to disease.

(Check out these, by the would-be rulers in Greenpeace and other reformists, which are nevertheless better than the reactionaries posting here:

http://gefreebc.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/what-you-dont-know-about-gmo-wont-hurt-you/

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2989

http://reason.com/blog/2009/08/12/update-on-greenpeace-claim-tha )

So clearly I am not anti-science in the sense of science as a method of constantly testing and experimenting with reality to overcome certain limits in our development.
In this society science is inevitably ‘bourgeois science’: separating something from the dominant use to which it is put is sometimes useful, but unless it is done on the basis of a thorough critique of its capitalist use (which JRCashcrop certainly did not even begin to attempt to do in his original post) it inevitably ends up as an apology for bourgeois science.

He continues:

Quote:
Obviously in a captialist state

I hope he is opposing this to pre-capitalist states and not to the demonstrably illusory fantasy, with horribly real effects, of a socialist or communist state – though his defence of science would make that compatible with such a state capitalist outlook – after all, Lenin said in his supposedly most “anarchist” book – “State and Revolution” – something like “Socialism equals State capitalism plus electrification”. I am not entirely opposed to electricity by any means, though I would guess a rational society would use, at most, under half the amount of electricity that is used today given the same population levels, since even solar, wind or wave powered electricity helps, through the magnetic force that is central to electricity, with the degeneration of the quality of the earth. But nuclear powered electricity…? You really are as mad as the world you pretend you oppose. I am not going into all the ins and outs of the carcinogenic nature of nuclear power, and all its other miseries, since the information has been around for at least 40 years now, but to talk about making it “safe and well-managed” is like a paid PR man for Selafield. The language of bureaucratic clones. Orwell would have had field-day tearing apart your sterile words.
JRCashcrop continues:

Quote:
The point that I was making is that human development in a non capitalist society should not be constrained by scare tactics and half truths about be pros or cons of particular scientific advancements. Decisions should be based on proven scientific facts.

This guy has no compunction about repeating dominant propaganda that opposition to GMOs is “scare tactics”, when there is plenty of evidence to show that there are very real reasons to be scared (see above references). Nor does he provide any “proven scientific facts” to the contrary himself. Besides, no two “scientific facts”, whether from Monsanto or from Greenpeace, provide any “proof” whatsoever because they are in conflict with one another. The “proof” of GMOs destruction of biodiversity will come too late, about as useless as “proving” to a person from Hiroshima or Nagasaki that a nuclear bomb kills tens of thousands of people and contaminates the environment; it is a proof no-one should want to wait for. He asserts abstractly what certain reformist scientists have already disproved, though the word “disproved” cannot itself be proven. Which is why “proof” is an abstract ideal, whereas evidence is concrete and open to correction. And there is plenty of evidence against GMOs and has been for over 10 years now..
Dominant propaganda always says opposition to it is “scare tactics”, whilst at the same time some sections of bourgeois science try to scare people, for example, with crap about swine fever and bird flu, all designed to experiment with social control and mass manipulation, destroy small farmers in favour of agro-business and vastly increase the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
His “If it can be shown that GM can be used in some form safely in a way that out weighs any negative effects then it should be considered. If it is proven otherwise and the risks out weigh the benefits then it should not be used.”
is even sillier (and far far more dangerous) than saying “If it can be shown that smoking tobacco can be used in some form safely in a way that out weighs any negative effects then it should be considered. If it is proven otherwise and the risks out weigh the benefits then it should not be used.”, more dangerous because the effects of GMOs on biodiversity look like being irreversible (a recent report in the US said that 30% of non-GMO rice was contaminated). This “open mind” crap is just a way for intellectuals to avoid any decisions; one might as well keep an open mind about rape.
He says:

Quote:
You stated that expressing the view that I expressed was akin to strike breaking. This simply shows just how far up your own arse your head is if you genuinely believe this to be true. And as for Jose Bove and Rene Riesel they are a couple of twats who attacked a GM research crop and I have no problem stating that I don't support that.

In the context of their imprisonment, your comments are definitely a support for the state, and akin to support for strikebreaking (not quite the same thing as “akin to strikebreaking”). I too have my problems with Bove and Riesel, particularly the former, but they are not the same criticisms that the GMO research industry, and cretins like him that support them, would have of them: they, along with their predecessors in India who influenced them, concretely attacked an important development in commodity production, paid for the risks they took with the misery of imprisonment, and you, comfortable with your abstractions, rubbish them (he certainly does not have the same attitude of openness towards them that he does towards scum like GMO researchers). To call them “twats” in this context is far worse than being a twat.
His comment

Quote:
“Your knee jerk reaction is typical of many so called anarchists when their holy cows of ill thought out liberal views are challenged.”

is totally vapid: how “thought out” are his views? Not at all, if his contribution here is anything to go by. He has challenged nothing concretely – just smugly spewed out a vague idea off the top of his head. It’s obvious that I am not a liberal (for one thing liberals are never honest about feeling violent towards “sensible” intellectuals like him). He is the knee (or some other part of the anatomy) jerk.
As for Jef Costello’s post, which at times reaches a level of delirium I have not encountered for some time, well….let us have a look:
He says of me:

Quote:
Your mixture of hyperbole, personal insults, misrepresentation and stunning insensitivity to logic is the problem and makes me wonder whether you are a troll or simply an idiot. JR said that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that nuclear power and gm crops (both of which in pratise I think are a bad idea) could potentially be useful. This is a perfectly sensible post and your overreaction is bizarre.

Nowhere does he say how I have misrepresented or been stunningly insensitive to logic. Which seems illogical (‘unscientific’ even) in itself. He endlessly insults me in his post, yet attacks me for making personal insults. Very logical. He says I might be a troll – I am not going to eat him for supper, as the old kid’s story goes, because his being full of bullshit makes him indigestible, but perhaps he just does not like new people joining forums on libcom unless they submit to the general etiquette of abstract wankery. That old “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” cliche is used by dominant society to endlessly justify almost everything, from the Catholic church, to cultural consumption, to the Labour party, to capitalism in general. But the baby is an aborted foetus and its putrid worm-ridden corpse is threatening to contaminate not just the bathwater but the plumbing and the whole water system. Or is this more hyperbole? I think it was Walter Benjamin who said “The truth is in the exaggerations”. One could say that the truth is in the overreactions. If I express myself passionately I am, within the circular logic and repressed emotions inherent in abstract impractical thinking, by definition, “overreacting, hysterical, emotional”. If you want to reduce debate to the up in the air idea of calling something horrendous “potentially …useful” then it might be less “stunningly insensitive to logic” to say in what way GMOs and nuclear power are “potentially useful”. But I’ve dealt with this stupid notion of ‘debate’ before in my response to JRCashcrop’s “sensible” crap.
JC:

Quote:
“I didn't mention anything about passion, stop trying to smear me as some kind of nationalist

This comment about “French Latin passion” was meant to have been part of a response to Tarwater’s racist and nationalist comment, but got lost somehow when I cut and pasted, so I reluctantly apologise for an implication not intended for you.
JC:

Quote:
“By insular I am referring to a movement that is only focussed on bullying people within it rather than actually reaching people outside of it. You also seem to be endorsing violence 'as long as you can get away with it' this is pathetic bullying tactics. How can you expect to discuss anything or to help people understand anything when you also think that you can attack them whenever you feel like it. You pick up on the word 'we' and try to write me off as some kind of conformist which is a greater leap than you managed when you smeared JR as 'pro-GMO' although equally idiotic.”

In what way are those who support GMOs “within” a movement? The social movement I see myself as part of is the movement that struggles to abolish what is, not one that justifies what is with Marxist or anarchist or Idontknowwhatist language, as I have already stated. Besides, although everyone is jumping on the idea of a “ risk of being physically attacked”, as I said the violence would mostly be verbal. And a risk is not the same as a certainty, though, having asked people about this, I admit that hardly anyone would go beyond verbal violence. I certainly felt violent, but as N. said “Hey this is the internet” In other words, whqt one sqys online and what one does in face to face situations are not the same thingm any more than feeling violent is the same as always acting on these feelings. But there is no implication of bullying in what I said, unless you think physically attacking GMOs and those who make decisions that help with their development, is bullying. I am not a pacifist and neither apparently are you – it is just that we have different definitions of who should be the object of our rage (you, for instance, seem to have no compunction about dumping me in the wilderness to die in the belief that I am a primitivist, which seems slightly more violent than anything I have expressed). I am not a masochist either – only masochists try to attack aspects of this society without an idea of doing so “as long as they can get away with it”. I am not into martyrdom, though the risks have to be weighed up. Nevertheless, it is a bit of a leap to go from the idea I put forward of risking being physically attacked for supporting GMOs using radical terminology to saying I “think [I] can attack people whenever [I] feel like it”. Sometimes it is necessary to attack people who are apparently on our side: there have been instances in history when leaders who advocated going home in the face of police attacks have themselves been physically stoned, and these attacks were a contribution towards the progress of a violent movement against the State. By any means necessary – if you can have a fair chance of getting away with it.
As for me

Quote:
“restating what we already knew.”

JRCashcrop does not give the tiniest molecule of an indication anywhere that he already knew anything, and in his later post, as I have just said, attacks those who attack GMOs practically as “twats”. You indulge JRCashcrop way beyond what he says. The so-called “smear” against him as being pro-GMO is not at all a smear, at least judging from anything he has said here (and where else could I judge him from?).
You say my reasoning – changing slightly the words of Marx to show that toothpaste, kites, red meat, razor blades, gold, and GMOs are only comparable within commodity logic - is “specious”, and a “ridiculous comparison”, but offer nothing in the way of argument to support these put-downs. Very ‘scientific’.You claim to be on the side of reason, but offer no reasons. Why did you bother?
JC:

Quote:
More people vote here than have ever destroyed GM crops, don't use the fact that a few people do it to justify something, or else you might accidentally end up justifying capitalism. Unless you find some clever way of writing them off as not being real people.

I was not using the fact that people destroy GM crops as an argument to “justify something” – it was merely a statement of fact, so the rest of what you say is irrelevant. But you have not justified an attitude that is against their destruction. This at a time when in the US official research admits that 30% of non-GMO rice is now cross-fertilised with GMOs, is sickeningly moronic.
JC:

Quote:
The nuclear bomb and the concentration camp do not need to exist in a communist society but that doesn't mean that everything invented by capitalism is bad. Do you think the wars and murders etc committed in primitive societies were good things?

I never said that everything invented by capitalism is bad – I am not John Zerzan, and, as I said, I think primitivism is as opposed to my emancipation as your crap; are you seriously incapable of recognizing that a radical critique of science involves recognizing it as not rational enough and attacking its function in the service of capital, and thus points to a future world, not to a fantasy about a past idyllic age. Does parodying my position as primitivist help you somehow with dismissing the otherwise anxious idea that I might be right about GMOs and science as it exists?
JC:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Man has been genetically modifying foods since the agricultural revolution. There is nothing wrong in the idea itself.
This is like saying, “13 year olds have been losing their virginity since before the agricultural revolution. There’s nothing wrong in the idea itself” in order to justify gang-raping 13 year old virgins. Sure, the impersonal nature and the social acceptabilty of the rape of the planet make GMOs seem less violent than gang rape, but an element of clear-thinking would make anybody realize that the effect and trauma of GMOs will be, and for some already is, far worse than the gang rape of a 13 year old. Circle AK replied to Devrim correctly, so there is no need to repeat the argument, though I feel he is somewhat too nice in his reply, as if arguing coolly and unemotionally with all the people who’ve not questioned the dominant bullshit will somehow effect them. It is for this reason that he dismisses the idea that I should feel violently towards “coms” who justify the violence of this society, as if someone saying they are a communist somehow makes them one (and JRCashcrop is such a “com” that he has communicated nothing since his initial brain-dead post). Anger might move them a bit more in a “communist” direction, particularly if several people express their anger. What is truly amazing is that so-called ‘revolutionaries’ do not feel any shame in coming out with the same propaganda as Monsanto and all the other nauseating ideologists for the commodity’s destruction of life on the planet in the name of saving people.

Quote:
No it is not, you are making an emotive, ridiculous and frankly downright insulting analogy. You smear someone as a propagandist just for suggesting that there might be another viewpoint. You are the kind of coward that would have people killed 'for their own good'. Your arrogance in believing yourself to be infallible is only highlighted by your pseudo deference to 'indigenous people' personally I'd love to see you dumped in the woods stripped of all the trappings of civilisation. You'd be dead in hours. Douches like you alwys imagine that you'd be the one to survive in some primitive fantasy.

The analogy with the 13 year old virgin is certainly downright insulting – but you’d be more consistent if you didn’t insult me in a contentless way in response to my insult with some content to it. You can’t attack someone for being insulting and then resort to insults devoid of all rationality (douche, coward, etc.). Insulting the reasoning supporting the crap of this society is necessary. But Nyarlathotep has already responded to that. However, I cannot see the logic of saying that I am

Quote:
“the kind of coward that would have people killed 'for their own good'. Your arrogance in believing yourself to be infallible is only highlighted by your pseudo deference to 'indigenous people' personally I'd love to see you dumped in the woods stripped of all the trappings of civilisation. You'd be dead in hours. Douches like you always imagine that you'd be the one to survive in some primitive fantasy.”

Am I alone in thinking that you’ve really lost the plot here? Normally insults bear some reference to what someone says or does, but I guess by this time the cocktail of speed, acid, heroin and meths must have kicked in and so you steered off onto the planet Zog. And so you continue ad nauseam.

Quote:

Quote:
The idea of a discussion is to reach an answer which is what communists need to do…. You're the one that has had an angry and disproportionate reaction to someone simply suggesting keeping an open mind.

But the idea of abstract massdebation is to reach a climax that changes nothing – an “answer” without consequences. And these forums never reach an “answer” in the sense of a practical decision, as you well know. If “keeping an open mind” means opposing attacks on GMOs then you’re just a liberal – practical answers are endlessly delayed in the pursuit of understanding the world without changing it (as if you can seriously understand the world without changing it, an attitude that Marx attacked in his famous Theses on Feuerbach) . Anger and disproportionate reaction against this society have to be put down by this society and by those who accept a purely intellectual attitude because this world needs to constantly tame people away from their furious humanity, a humanity which is essentially expressed by the struggle to unify emotions with intellect and to apply them practically against concrete expressions of our alienation. People are complicit in their own misery partly because they remain trapped in the false choices of thinking unemotionally or feeling without understanding.

As for Devrim complaining that my posts are not conducive to discussion – that is fine by me. As a member of the ICC, his first contribution to a revolutionary movement would be to loudly leave this useless uninteresting obstacle to the development of a revolutionary movement.

And finally, Caiman del Barrio saying

Quote:
“ The comment I quoted is still absurd and borderline sexist.”

My original comment is this:

Quote:
I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

To which CdelB said:

Quote:
That's my favourite part of the post. Women are incapable of doing abstract thought.

To which I replied:

Quote:
To translate my “relatively few women are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish” into, “Women are incapable of doing abstract thought.” is a distortion of my opinion in order to dismiss what I say. A typical political tactic – Chavez and Morales and all the others do the same kind of distortion; so do traditional couples when they argue. Though clearly the social significance of such silly arguments is different, what they have in common is that it is a method of maintaining separations, confusion, lies and the idea that you are always right. The tendency (and a tendency which feminism, insofar as it accepts present society, is destroying) of women, because of their different experiences of alienation, to see things in terms of practical consequences has at least the advantage that GMOs would be seen in terms of their consequences and not according to the abstract fantasy that JRCashcrop expresses.

This is “borderline sexist”???? C del B – you are borderline politically correctist. Ideology functions partly as a way of screening out other people’s ideas that do not fit into simple categorization, and making them “fit” by willfully not trying to understand them. I showed these comments to 3 women not known for their acceptance of masculine bullshit. Without exception they thought you were simply playing politics, and one of them said that if it was sexist it was only in the sense of being a bit anti-men. Clearly you do not want to change, to be open to change or to be open to influence by people who might have thought and acted with a bit less of a petrified attitude than you obviously have. These tendencies to abstract (evasive) thinking in the libcom forums partly explain the low participation of women on this site.

I have written a lot here, and certainly there are more important things to write about, but the attitudes expressed by Cashcrop, Costello, Devrim, Tarwater and CdelB are indicative of a powerfully conservative tendency among regular libcom posters which is not at all conducive to the development of an attack on the forces maintaining our chains, tendencies I have long noted as a previous lurker. There are certainly people on libcom who seriously want to attack this horrible world, but they have yet to make decisions against those here who merely want to talk about doing so without taking any practical risk whatsoever. I hope I have contributed towards those who seriously want a revolution to inciting them to start attacking those who just want to massdebate.

PS As an example of brilliant logic and sensible science I am publicising this subtle attack on me from JRCashcrop in a personal message:

Your idiotic threats of violence only make you seem even more nutty than your retarded eco-mentalist rants. If you can't formulate a decent argument beyond the nonsense that you already posted then I have no interest in debating with you. Now fuck off hippy.

I am really upset that JRCashcrop has no interest in debating with me. It's just not fair... boo hoo........etc etc etc The written violence, without any perspective against this world, of Caschrop and Costello really shows how all that anger has turned inward and that when someone points out the stupidity of their position all they can do is resort to the most contentless put-downs. "Sad" is hardly the word.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
May 3 2010 16:05
Quote:
Since it is clear that GMOs and nuclear power as they exist are at the very least as bad as aerial bombardment and cluster bombs

I think I see a flaw...

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
May 3 2010 19:17
GerryK wrote:
Thank you, Nyarlathotep for defending some of the essentials of my last post – a pleasant surprise amongst the dross (Circle A-K excepted). I will now explain and defend my attitudes in my own words, though this will cover some of what Ret Marut and the others have already said.

Let us look at JRCashcrop’s original post:

Quote:
There is no reason to suggest that we as a society cant over come any problems associated with GM foods.
Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

Since it is clear that GMOs and nuclear power as they exist are at the very least as bad as aerial bombardment and cluster bombs as they exist then I feel it might be useful to substitute the words “aerial bombardment” and “cluster bombs” instead of GMOs and nuclear power. Imagine him writing the following during the bombing of Iraq or now, just after, Obomber’s latest killings of innocents in Afghanistan:

Admin; childish insult deleted. No flaming - behave or face sanction.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
May 4 2010 11:17

Why did you bother with such a long reply?
Admin; childish insult deleted. No flaming - behave or face sanction.

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
May 4 2010 16:27

i think its obvious that gm foods under capitalism are not to be trusted and tend to have horrible effects on people and the planet, but it is also true that people have modified foods etc for thousands of years.

Whether or not gm foods in the 'modern' sense could be used in communism is another question, to be honest i don't know much about the science behind it but my general attitude is that in communism i don't see why there would be much reason for gm food but also it would lose a lot of its moral and practical problems it clearly has today.

twah
Offline
Joined: 18-03-10
May 4 2010 16:32

Well I read it all and agreed with most of it.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
May 4 2010 17:06
twah wrote:
Well I read it all and agreed with most of it.

Admin; childish insult deleted. No flaming - behave or face sanction.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
May 5 2010 08:17
JR Cash wrote:
Why did you bother with such a long reply?
Admin; childish insult deleted. No flaming - behave or face sanction.

I am sorry but anyone who compares research into GM foods with cluster bombing is clearly out of touch with reality. I am all for moderation and debate but wise up for fuck sake admin. You do nothing about this nutter when he suggests that those who oppose his warped view should face violence yet you go on a censorship spree when people ridicule the foolish drivel that he writes.

raize
Offline
Joined: 25-11-09
May 5 2010 10:01
Quote:
This makes almost as much sense as saying “There is religion and the use tht religion is put to.” Science has always been put to the use of the ruling class or the would-be rulers from Aristotle onwards. This of course does not make it always devoid of any possible use, any more than the fact that culture has always been a force for conformism means we should automatically dismiss culture.

What point are you trying to make? Religion can be put to many 'uses' but so can culture?

I think arguing that supporting GM crops is lining up with the state, as you implied, is a ridiculous position. The pharmaceutical industry can do very damaging things in the name of profit but if I argued that in, some cases, drugs are needed would I then be lining up with the state?

From what I've read of the subject I'm wary, albeit not outright opposed, of GM foods but the knee-jerk black and white response you have to supporters is baffling:

Quote:
Since it is clear that GMOs and nuclear power as they exist are at the very least as bad as aerial bombardment and cluster bombs as they exist then I feel it might be useful to substitute the words “aerial bombardment” and “cluster bombs” instead of GMOs and nuclear power. Imagine him writing the following during the bombing of Iraq or now, just after, Obomber’s latest killings of innocents in Afghanistan:

At the risk of being censured I think its fair to say this is ridiculously over the top. There is very little debate that cluster bombs kill, and are designed (and will always be designed), to kill people and drawing equivalence between cluster bombs and a complex and broad issue like GM is just nonsensical.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
May 5 2010 11:14

raize:

Quote:
There is very little debate that cluster bombs kill, and are designed (and will always be designed), to kill people and drawing equivalence between cluster bombs and a complex and broad issue like GM is just nonsensical.

Firstly I was comparing nuclear power to cluster bombs, and GMOs with aerial bombardment, but no matter. If we are talking about the degree of debate about a subject, then we could easily say that at the beginning of the 17th century, there was no debate about the sun going round the Earth - it was taken as fact. Galileo, certainly one of the few scientisits who risked everything in pursuit of what he knew was true, was himself arrogantly dismissed in his time. Fortunately there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people throughout the world who think that nuclear power and GMOs are very destructive. And if they read what I have written here they would think it obvious, banal even. Unlike the rubbishing Galileo got in his epoch, it's not of course the church who are doing the rubbishing, but the God of science and the church of abstract tinking as exemplified on this thread by JRCashpoint and his pals. To reduce the question to a "communist use" or to who controls this crap is as "nonsensical" as saying parliament or the State can be given a "communist" use.

I must remind, for example BigLittleJ, and all those who think what I have said here is flawed, of banal facts he probably already knows since he’s clearly so flawless – e.g. the number of children who have been getting leukaemia around Selafield/Windscale since the 1950s, indicative of the carcinogenic effects of nuclear power everywhere, or the estimate of over a million deaths in the USSR (now former) alone (not including the rest of Europe or elsewhere) resulting from radioactivity released at Chernobyl in 1986, an estimate given very limited publicity in France a few months after the disaster, but which has since been revised vastly downwards in keeping with the power of the nuclear lobby. This lobby also always manages to persuade its friends in the State to constantly revise the acceptable levels of contamination - the "safe"amount of becquerels released in endless nuke accidents round the world or just showing up in normal everyday contamination is constantly increased so as not to "scare" (JRCashpointless' word) people. Of course, unlike cluster bombs or aerial bombardment, death is slow, the pain is prolonged, the cancer is invisible (very convenient for the 'immortal, omniscient' God of the commodity) and there's an inability to attribute the fatalities directly to anything specific. The perfect alibi. It is a measure of the enormous ideological power of this society and of the nuclear industry in particular, that so-called 'communists' can arrogantly dismiss my analogy as flawed. But then the Stalinist shitheads of the French Communist Party, the main propagators of neclear power whilst in government in post-WWll France, also dismissed anyone who attacked their madness as idiots or whatever. At that time, they too were thought to be communist by the vast majority, even of people who were opposed to this society in some ways.

I have put forward an argument that is slightly more developed than "fuck off hippy" (I have never been or supported hippies, but it seems like so-called communists here are rather like racists who would call someone a nigger-lover just on the basis of disliking what they had to say). I do not really support the anti-flaming rule on libcom, because it is applied arbitrarily (a friend said he had been censored for merely saying that what someone said was stupid, even though he had backed up his argument). But the internet is full of embittered people who think that calling someone a moronic hippy, without the slightest idea to back it up, is the height of intelligence, and I see no point in filling up forums with "cunt", "prick", "fuck you", "twat", or whatever.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
May 5 2010 12:20
GerryK wrote:
I have never been or supported hippies, but it seems like so-called communists here are rather like racists who would call someone a nigger-lover just on the basis of disliking what they had to say

As opposed to you who suggested that people should face violent attack because you disliked what they had to say.

raize
Offline
Joined: 25-11-09
May 5 2010 12:53

Gerry K:

It not necessarily a matter of the degree of the debate. Cluster bombs or aerial bombardment are inherently, by definition and design, designed to kill. GMO's are designed for a variety of purposes, very little if any of which are directly or consciously destructive. The problems of GMO's, such as 'terminator'/sterile crops or a lack of biodiversity are possible side-effects and not necessarily inherent. This is not to argue that these problems are not a serious concern but that it is possible to treat these as issues in and of themselves. By contrast cluster bombs/aerial bombardment have little use outside destruction.

I'm not entirely sure why you've brought up nuclear power as that's an entirely separate issue, with different repercussions, even if it is generally taken up by the same milieu.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Online
Joined: 7-05-06
May 5 2010 13:03
JRCash wrote:
you who suggested that people should face violent attack because you disliked what they had to say.

Where did he say that? He actually said;

GerryK wrote:
In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked.

.

JRCash wrote:
I am sorry but anyone who compares research into GM foods with cluster bombing is clearly out of touch with reality. I am all for moderation and debate but wise up for fuck sake admin. You do nothing about this nutter when he suggests that those who oppose his warped view should face violence yet you go on a censorship spree when people ridicule the foolish drivel that he writes.

By the same logic; anyone who makes such simplistic, uninformed and arrogant comments on comparisons between GM crops and organic crops - as JRCashcrop did in posts #4 above, and which I replied to in post #28 - is clearly out of touch with reality. (One thing I might have added to the problems of non-organic/GM crops is the dangers to the workforce in handling toxic chemicals when applying fertilisers/pesticides.)

JRCash and others appear reduced to name-calling in the absence of any credible reply to the arguments they resent. All they can do is pick out and sometimes distort the most 'over the top' comments of their opponent and try to use them to dismiss without engagement the whole of his arguments. Not that I think there aren't any problems with GerryK's mode of discourse but I don't have time to say more right now.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
May 5 2010 13:23

..

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
May 5 2010 14:27
JerryK wrote:
I must remind, for example BigLittleJ, and all those who think what I have said here is flawed, of banal facts he probably already knows since he’s clearly so flawless – e.g. the number of children who have been getting leukaemia around Selafield/Windscale since the 1950s, indicative of the carcinogenic effects of nuclear power everywhere, or the estimate of over a million deaths in the USSR (now former) alone (not including the rest of Europe or elsewhere) resulting from radioactivity released at Chernobyl in 1986, an estimate given very limited publicity in France a few months after the disaster, but which has since been revised vastly downwards in keeping with the power of the nuclear lobby.

Right, so if something causes leukaemia then it is as bad as or worse than cluster bombs/aerial bombardment, and therefore should be expunged from the earth? I guess we'll also be saying goodbye to x-ray machines and aeroplanes then. I'm sorry, but the arguments you are making here are pure hysteria.

Ret Marut wrote:
(One thing I might have added to the problems of non-organic/GM crops is the dangers to the workforce in handling toxic chemicals when applying fertilisers/pesticides.)

I might just as well make the argument that since organic farming requires more extensive use of heavy machinery - and a large proportion of workplace accidents in agriculture, one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, are caused by moving machinery - that communists should rigorously oppose organic farming. (I'm not making that argument, but that is the logical end point of this sort of thinking.)

The ideology of organic farming - because that's what it is - exists for only one reason. That reason is to make farms more profitable. Of course we should oppose unsafe working practices being forced on workers, whether these involve pesticides, tractors, or asbestos, either through better safety measures or just not using certain farming techniques. But organic farming has nothing to do with this - it was not conceived as a method of safer farming - it is, and has always been, a capitalist movement with capitalist goals.

EDIT: Take a look at this little list of chemicals organic farm workers can be expected to handle. Sure, it's packed full of provisos about how none of it can be allowed to get in the soil/crops - but it says fuck all about workplace safety. They're also allowed to use organic pesticides, some of which are really fucking nasty.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
May 5 2010 15:33
Quote:
I'm not entirely sure why you've brought up nuclear power as that's an entirely separate issue, with different repercussions,

Because in JRCashcrop's point about GMOs he puts them in the same sentence as nuclear power as things anarcho-hippies oppose because they're against "science". Iam ,btw, neither pro-hippy nor an anarchist.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
May 5 2010 15:39
GerryK wrote:
I am ,btw, neither pro-hippy nor an anarchist.

Quit the insults, this is a non-flaming forum.

You should get that on a t-shirt.

raize
Offline
Joined: 25-11-09
May 5 2010 16:10
Quote:
Because in JRCash's point about GMOs he puts them in the same sentence as nuclear power as things anarcho-hippies oppose because they're against "science".

Fair enough.

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
May 5 2010 22:47
BigLittleJ wrote:
Ret Marut wrote:
(One thing I might have added to the problems of non-organic/GM crops is the dangers to the workforce in handling toxic chemicals when applying fertilisers/pesticides.)

I might just as well make the argument that since organic farming requires more extensive use of heavy machinery - and a large proportion of workplace accidents in agriculture, one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, are caused by moving machinery - that communists should rigorously oppose organic farming. (I'm not making that argument, but that is the logical end point of this sort of thinking.)

The ideology of organic farming - because that's what it is - exists for only one reason. That reason is to make farms more profitable. Of course we should oppose unsafe working practices being forced on workers, whether these involve pesticides, tractors, or asbestos, either through better safety measures or just not using certain farming techniques. But organic farming has nothing to do with this - it was not conceived as a method of safer farming - it is, and has always been, a capitalist movement with capitalist goals.

EDIT: Take a look at this little list of chemicals organic farm workers can be expected to handle. Sure, it's packed full of provisos about how none of it can be allowed to get in the soil/crops - but it says fuck all about workplace safety. They're also allowed to use organic pesticides, some of which are really fucking nasty.

This is correct. Years ago I worked on a berry farm that was 'certified organic' and we still used all the standard fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides as normally used; the only difference was we had to make sure the poisons were sprayed no closer than 50cm from the base of the plant, so they wouldn't show up in soil tests when the farm next applied for certification. Organic commodities are like other commodities - they aren't as they appear!