- Re: Dmitry Orlov: Greta and the Deep Green State Archived Message
Posted by Sinister Burt
on November 9, 2019, 12:29 pm, in reply to "Dmitry Orlov: Greta and the Deep Green State"
|
Orlov's gerneral line of argument in the unpaid bit i read (forgive the inevitable misreading, i may be responding to other stuff i've read along the same lines, here or other threads) just seems like a more sophisticated form of climate change denial to me - 'yes there is climate change, but it's too complex to do anything about' is in practice the same as vanilla types like 'it's normal, the climate's always changed', 'it's fine, we can fix it with doo-dads and widgets', 'it's made up by the chinese' or 'it's an NWO excuse for the UN to bring in obama-style marxism' - all of which suit the economic status quo. And in places it even just sounds like protest denial - 'don't protest because the baddies secretly control your protests' - effectively promoting conservative quietism basically (on top of the paranoid inaction world-spanning conspiracies of total control often seem designed to engender). #### these people who are saying that the real rebels are the ones who know better than to rebel, or that the real protestors are the ones who protest against the protest (from their armchair) - i'm still waiting to see evidence of some action/activism from the people complaining about XR or greta so we can compare and contrast: have they been arrested supergluing themselves to anything, or been attacked by police dogs for flying drones about? Which of these groups' actions most benefits the staus quo in the here and now? (and not in some imagined future nwo that would apparently benefit from us believing in the 'climate hoax' for some reason (chemtrails, agenda 21, something something)). I can understand these arguments from conservatives or reactionaries, but despair when i hear lefties giving them - fair enough if arguing from a position of more radical action, but not if it's just laziness-justifying contrariness from a sedentary position (though this arguing for inaction because a proposed action isn't radical enough seems familiar here on the left somehow...). Greta thunberg stands up there and berates a load of un worthies about the fantasy of endless economic growth, some of the very words i'd have probably used in her position, her appearances in the media then go down several notches, and people still complain about her? What do people want her to say? Maybe they should tell her. Whatever greta's supposed failings (i had a lot more at 16, and probably still do now), she's picked up that bit about endless growth from someone - she can pick up more of the same from other left wing green types too, but only if they haven't abandoned her as the bourgeois enemy - if a wedge is successfully driven between green and red politics, surely this can only help the powers that be. While i obviously might wish for a more explicitly left wing approach, we shouldn't attack people amplifying the message we want to be heard just because they might qualify as a liberal in some way - it's the message that's important in this case (which is not to deny the importance of message control, but that just reinforces the point i think). |