Let’s better say what I do accept. I have read Marx and accept his analysis of dynamics of capital as correct, it’s hard not to see that it is spot-on. I accept the general paradigm that the foundation of all such dynamics is the underlying material conditions, i.e. wealth inequality, which leads to power inequality. He however never outlined a clear way out.
I read enough secondary literature about whatever people tried to build on Marx as ways out and have seen enough of evidence against “real existing socialism” and have first-hand family experience from this system. I know all the objections that it was state capitalism or whatever, but I am pessimistic about human nature.
Actual socialism emerging from a revolution and whatever leadership to stay uncorrupted instead of eventually seizing power seems very utopian and unlikely to me, just as utopian and naive as anarchists believe that self-organized structures will not degenerate back to capitalistic tribalism with a few extra steps that will just redistribute the power a little bit and new opportunists to win the next round.
You misunderstood my “European patriotism” (in quotes!), because I never said anything about loving or approving everything done by the organisation you criticize (EU). What I was talking about was the ethos of wanting to protect the least shitty system I see anywhere on earth right now, which is deployed most successfully around Europe-the-continent, the “real existing faulty bureaucratic democracy”.
You seem to be of the opinion that it needs to be dismantled and replaced by something else. The right extremists say the same. The problem is that it’s easy to call for destruction but it’s difficult to build. All I see is “we need to tear it down… And then we’ll somehow magically build something new from scratch”.
I am a software developer by profession. You know how this works? You have to work with shitty systems other people you despise built over decades. I wish I could throw it all into the garbage and just build from scratch. But unlike politics, where talk is cheap, here I can see and quantify how much fucking work it is both technically and socially. It’s just like wanting to “just build a different sky scraper” without understanding anything about engineering. You can try, and probably will end up with another flavor if ugly mess. You also need to (re)educate other developers, you need to convince people, and finally the users need to either not be bothered by your “improvements” and you cannot allow such a long down time or reconstruction phase because the outside world is not waiting for you to get your shit together.
Now, I think politics is exactly the same. Law is the code of society, and developers and users need to buy into different paradigms I.e. accept other values and standards and possibly form of organization. I don’t see any proposed alternative being even close to have a clear realistic path, except of a strong faith that “it somehow will work out”. I doubt that it works that way. History works incrementally, and complex systems become incrementally fucked up, does not matter where you start.
The radical left is losing against the fascists because the fascists learned how to incrementally win mind-share of the people and hide it’s radical nature, while the radical left is continuing to engage in black and white thinking and pushing regular people away.
That leads me to the hypothesis that the only way to fix the system is actually good people low-key moving up in power and tweaking it from the inside, that means the reverse direction of what is happening right now.
Then I believe we need “pro-social propaganda”, working in a subtle way like the capitalistic matrix, which means that you have to win back the media. If you have the media, you can win the hearts and minds of people.
The classic approach of the left only works in a society where the majority is in such distress that they are open to extreme changes and have nothing to lose. But the system we are in is a system of “good enough”.
So I don’t believe in the tactics of the radical left and I don’t believe in the existence of a solid plan, there is at most a “concept of a plan”, in the words of a well-known dictator. I doubt the practical experience and competence of radical left thinkers and intellectuals, who have never worked inside a complex system such as academia or a company and have a simplistic idea of “change management” for social, bureaucratic and technical structures. Being able to organize some demonstration or violent resistance to break something does not necessarily correlate with the ability to build something better in its place and might not justify possible damage done in between.
So what is the way forward? I have no idea. But that is why I hope for some genuine and smartly executed “reformist” movement and would not expect any good outcomes from naive “revolutionary” ambitions. The revolutionary left is ultimately also a collection of populist movements, in the sense of promising simple answers to complex problems.
What does that make me ideologically? No idea. I don’t care about labels. Call it “pragmatic realistic left” or whatever.
This is not wrong, but only in the sense of everything can be made money off. That’s just capitalism.
But apart from that, renewables are better for people, for the environment and for power distribution (no pun intended) because people can have solar energy themselves making energy more decentralized.
So what if somebody does get rich on solar and wind? Its important to not become too dependent on one Capitalist supplying some central piece of the non-fossil tech stack, for sure, but I think your simplification is not doing the whole topic justice and equating two very different things.
It’s like saying, plant based meat is bad because some capitalist is getting rich. Okay, rather keep eating meat, more than before, just to spite the evil startups producing veggie sausages!