From his past writings this not my impression. In my dictionary reactionary is a synonym for ultra conservative.
"The reason you’re eating out of a foodbank is because the Green-Industrial Complex ate your lunch." As if there is any real green thinking behind any active political policy in the UK.
Well, there is NetZero, the current active economic and political policy by the government to mitigate climate change. In my view this is putting lipstick on the pig. You cannot square the circle of capitalist growth forever in the matrix of financialization and neoliberal rent extraction.
He is perhaps exaggerating when he mentions Green-Industrial Complex, probably because he is angry. At the end of the day, this new ‘green’ policy is just an extension and a new variation of the ole Thatcher’s deindustrialisation and neoliberal policy which has now accelerated using the new tool, so to speak.
Furthermore, this de-industrialisation of the west, goes hand-in-hand with the globalised economy as per Shwab and in the US of A i.e. transferring the industrial production to the Third World, at cheaper rates, essentially.
Technology isn't a solution but organising and solidarity is a mitigation and I don't read any of that from this sheep guy.
Tim Watkins doesn’t tout technology as the answer to all our problems, in fact he argues the opposite. He examines how humanity has used the energy resources historically and the limits to growth.
I don’t disagree that solidarity is a mitigation per se, but for that one needs to have a clear picture of where one is going. He provides that.
Don’t think he claims to provide solutions except when he is musing. If anything, he has warned about the catastrophic collapse (Depression etc.) and what possible outcomes you may get from that scenario in terms of societal changes.
I need stronger arguments to get me to believe this guy is a reactionary.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »