and transitions into a new egalitarian way of being that will stave off the climate crisis and being everything into harmony"
Like how many words do you need to reinvent the thing. A lot of those types are just ignorant libs who need a push, but I think some of them, like Roger Halan or Jem Bendell, are maybe avoiding saying the words intentionally for any number of reasons.
I've heard from more than a few academics that, for the sake of professional advancement, they must not use terms like "capitalism", "Marxism" or "socialism" and instead have to describe these ohenomena without referencing the known terms, language or jargon of each.
if you use the bad words, you're a leftist crank. if you don't use them, but describe them exactly and make your critiques, it's all good and your work will be endorsed by your institution and colleagues.
welcome to Freedom's Laboratory, baby.
Term originates from an article I remember seeing a while ago. Some excerpts:
These two questions—of sovereignty and of capitalism—point toward four rough paths. We call these Climate Leviathan, Climate Mao, Climate Behemoth, and Climate X. Climate Leviathan describes an emergent global order committed to the consolidation of capitalism via the organization of a form of planetary sovereignty that can overcome the collective action problem. Climate Mao would represent a similarly planetary-scale “solution,” but one dedicated to an anti-capitalist order. Climate Behemoth describes a global arrangement animated by a chauvinistic capitalist and nationalist politics that denies—until it can only denounce—the threat climate change poses to national capitals. Climate X is the name we give the collection of movements that pursue global climate justice: movements that build non-capitalist political economies, and construct solidarities at multiple scales that reject the political logic of sovereignty.
All these regions [in The Global South] have their own political-economic, ideological, and cultural histories to draw upon, many of which do not include a commitment to the regulative ideal of liberal-capitalist progress. This is the reason we give the name Climate Mao to the third future trajectory: a non-capitalist order of Leviathan-like planetary sovereignty. This is not the same thing as “Climate China,” although it is hard to imagine a scenario in which China does not play an important role in global climate politics. Instead, we call it Climate Mao partly because we anticipate that the potential for this future lies in the radical political traditions of South and East Asia, regions with historically significant rural collectivism that retains substantial contemporary organizational resources. Since this part of the world is home to literally billions of poor people, the vast majority of whom climate science indicates live in communities immediately at risk of climate change–induced disturbance—more at-risk populations than anywhere else on Earth—it seems reasonable to expect that these masses will draw upon those political and ideological traditions in the face of threats to their livelihoods. Given that climate change threatens not only the internal stability of these regions but the global political economy to which they are increasingly central, we anticipate Climate Mao would not embrace the nation-state as the locus of sovereignty, at least not for long. Insofar as capitalism stands justifiably accused of both driving climate catastrophe and preventing serious action to address it, Climate Mao represents the most likely non-capitalist formation willing to confront Leviathan on the planetary stage.
The appeal of Climate Mao to radical critics of capitalism continues to strike us. Since it is clear to them that the capitalist nation-state has proven an irremediable obstacle to climate action, let alone anything approaching climate justice, the appeal of Climate Mao is almost visceral. Like Leviathan, it promises to get beyond the spatial and political limits of the state and do something. But unlike Leviathan, it will not be beholden to the planet-eating capitalism that generated the problem in the first place—a condition that appears certain to guarantee Leviathan’s inadequacy to the problem.
Climate X is the name we give the collection of movements that pursue global climate justice: movements that build non-capitalist political economies, and construct solidarities at multiple scales that reject the political logic of sovereignty.
Hey it's me!
describes socialism
"You mean socialism?"
"No, a secret third thing"
All of western academia is about rediscovering Marx, only to re-bury him the minute the university brass get wind of it
I think your point is, why don't they just admit we need communism? That's the thing they are defining when they describe what we need.
Your post put the idea into my head that, maybe they are. Maybe they know we need communism but they're using such obscure language so the libs will be agreeing with them and start looking for communism without knowing that's what they're looking for.
I don't know, that's pretty wishful thinking on my part.
The word "communism" itself has been so smeared with propaganda that the average person might agree 100% with communist principles, but as soon as you say the word they get the ick.
This is very optimistic. Much more likely, these people came up in lib education/propaganda, believe communism can't exist/doesnt work/has killed trillions, and so what we need is a new thing that has all/many hallmarks of communism except it was invented by The Innovative, Tolerant, Progressive West. And of course, the more that someone understands the nature of the problem and the type of solutions that will be required, the more any new climate sensitive political paradigm will actually come to rely on and resemble marxist/communist analysis. But no matter how much that yet to be rigorously defined third system has in common with communism, it will always be known as some Other Thing because western liberalism is incapable of learning from anywhere in the global south, let alone the parts of the global south run by communist parties.
Capitalism defenders be like "we need industry that builds things for the people and makes sure everyone's basic needs are met and the best way to do that is to just wish hard enough that someday the people with the money who have no incentive to do it do it anyway."
Whatever little experience I've had with climate scientists, ecologists, and activists, is that they're all different flavors of anticspitalist, and blame capitalism as the root of whatever problem they're working against. There is little to no illusion on who's to blame and what needs to be done, even if the way to get there looks different depending on the person
People ("progressive" liberals) don't believe in capitalism and hate communism, they believe in Capitalism ™ and hate ©ommunism
