MP Jenica Atwin Quits Green Party To Join The Liberals

Don't fall for the right wing "we have to suffer or accept nuclear power" propaganda. We can still have nice things. Even nicer things.

Remember the days when a washing machine lasted 30 years and people didn't redecorate every few years?  Remember the days before fast fashion when a t-shirt lasted for years? We need consumer laws forcing printer manufacturers to sell refillable cartridges. Over-packaging has been rampant for decades. Screws can just as easily be sold in cardboard boxes rather than plastic. Natural landscaping rather than lawns saves water and labour. 

We need high speed trains between major cities to replace flying and we have to stop subsidizing air travel so people will fly less. 

We need to invest in geothermal which could be providing both heat and cooling to many private and public homes and building. 

A life of plenty doesn't require everything disposible. I can't even change the battery on my laptop without having it serviced which is the message from the manufacturer that I should replace the laptop. 

We will have less in some ways but we will have much more in others.  Clean air is hugely valuable. It saves lives and makes living more pleasant in ways more significant and impactful than fast fashion. 

We don't have to freeze in the dark or give up meat and cars. That is scare-monguering. There are existing solutions all over the place.  A large part will be paying the true cost of that which we consume. 

A lot of consumerism is about "keeping up with the Jones". Not in the negative connotation but in the sense of being in step with your community. If everyone around you gets the latest fashions then not getting them feels like deprivation. 

Minimalism is not at all in my nature but I am trying because owning a lot of stuff is a burden and can even interfere with using the stuff. It's very on trend, simplified wardrobes, tiny homes. There is already a move towards valuing experiences over ownership or at least adjusting the balance between the two.

I completely reject the notion that sustainable development and very comfortable lives are mutually exclusive. 

Quote:

josh]

queenmandy85 wrote:

 Ideology is an impediment to winning.

Vote for us!  We don't stand for anything!

Nice bit of sarcasm, Josh; but a problem exists in that when parties proclaim an ideology; 1) If elected they often fail to deliver what was promised/implied/expected and 2) They're liable to cling to the ideology at the expense of adopting open minded common-sense solutions to problems  "Oh no! - that would  be socialism/capitalism/communism...."

Unfortunately there's no way to find out how they'll perform before voting them in.

As for ideology being 'an impediment to winning': Maybe that was aslo intended as sarcasm? In any case I think the reverse is both true and regrettable.

Ideology is a theory that believes one over riding philosophy will solve all problems. It is a ridiculous idea.

That is why democratic socialism appears to be successful. It is pragmatic rather than idealogical. I look at the Romanow government in Saskatchewan which one could say was more conservative than Grant Devine's government. It was certainly a better government.

Right? Left? Ambidextrous is fine with me.

Edzell wrote:

"Sustainable" - ??

It would be interesting to see the assumptions, statistics, science & calculations purporting to determine whether/which aspects of our social & economic systems - our lifestyles if you like - are sustainable.

It's worth noting that for an entire system to be sustainable, all of its individual parts and their interactions with each other have to be sustained 'holistically' - a tall order and surely very, very difficult to model effectively.

Our current lifestyles which include disposible everything is not sustainable but there is no shortage of resources to provide us with luxurious lifestyles if we start building things to last again. 

A big part of it will be laws that prevent companies from using planned obsolescence to force people to replace objects. For example, require a 15 year warranty on washing machines. Considering they used to last 30 years it shouldn't be a problem.

People will have to buy 5 good t-shirts that last 3 years instead of 5  t-shirts they throw out every year. That isn't suffering. People won't mind at all as long as everyone else is in the same boat.  We simply have to start building things to last. 

The world has plenty of natural resources in the form of materials and labour. There is virtually no limit to what we can produce. The limitations are due to man-made systems of exchange and how they are exploited by the people we (humanity) place in power. 

All the great empires of history have fallen no matter what form they took.  Traditional empires have fallen out of favor morphed into a new form that is based more on political control through financial rather than military means. International corporations are the new empires running the world in the self-interest of the wealthy. 

International corporate empires will not fall to military power. They be must defeated through electoral politics in democratic countries and I do believe it will happen.  I think it will take 10 to 40 years so I may not see it but I think it has already begun. Occupy Wall Street was a burp. It had a lot of support but no direction. Even so it kicked off the focus on income inequality and wealth distribution. 

The right managed to harness the anger, in the US, against free trade deals, but the anger is still against trade deals written to benefit the wealthy through international corporate rights.  

The G7 are dragging their heals trying to do the least possible on a deal to force corporations to pay minimum taxes. They are only doing it because they have to. 

lagatta4 wrote:

Proudhon and Marx disagreed about many things,  but for both, "property" meant the means of production, especially the major ones, and major wealth accumulated over generations of exploitation. It had nothing to do with toothbrushes and other grooming implements, clothing and in some cases, not even modest houses. (Th0ugh in urban areas, some form of social housing is preferable if only because it discourages sprawl and is favourable to walkability and other sustainable mobility).

I have zero interest in politics that is not based on democratically-determined programmes and policy. Ecosocialist, in my case. Rabble was not founded on the basis of vacuous personality politics

And I certainly agree that rabble and babble are shadows of their former selves, and the left needs refoundation.

I must agree with all of this post. We have many historical examples of era's when the rentier class takes ascendance and they always include great misery for the many. My theoretical problem is that I do not believe that our interconnected global elites will cede power without a fight and certainly not to any democratically elected government. That only leaves civil disobedience on a global scale since I never trust anyone with a gun who says, "we come in peace."

There are many, many very desirable changes that would make our societies more sustainable. I fervently wish they would be put into effect ASAP, and meantime I do my insignificant best to pull my weight.

Unfortunately 'more sustainable' is not the same as 'sustainable'. It would be interesting to see the assumptions, the science & mathematics, behind statements about sustainability.

[quote=kropotkin1951I must agree with all of this post. We have many historical examples of era's when the rentier class takes ascendance and they always include great misery for the many. My theoretical problem is that I do not believe that our interconnected global elites will cede power without a fight and certainly not to any democratically elected government. That only leaves civil disobedience on a global scale since I never trust anyone with a gun who says, "we come in peace."[/quote]

We don't need them to cede power we can seize it through electing better lawmakers. Our problem is not that we can't gain power it's that we haven't convinced the majority that we would improve their lives. There are signs of that changing.  More democratic socialists are being elected.