The strain of neo-luddism that ran through their statement also rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that green capitalism is still capitalism, but do they expect people in the imperial core to just willingly give up the benefits of industrialization and post-industrial technologies?
You have to make a case for why things like public transport and degrowth are actually materially good for people (or at least offer a palatable alternative), not just say "hey guys let’s go back to living in wattle-and-daub hamlets because it’s The Right Thing To Do."
Some of the language definitely read as really weird, in particular the line about “the unbroken belief and adherence of all previous market-dominated forms of society to technological progress”, I typically try to avoid commenting on eco-ideology groups cause I usually subconsciously lump them all together as anprims but I am generally sceptical of any leftist ideology that decides to specifically put eco front and center in their name, it just has a tendency to signal weird and impractical ideas about technological progress at best, and at worst end up leading into social darwinism for chronically ill people and others who fundamentally rely on modern technology.
Word. While I do think anprims have a handful of good critiques of the “civilized” imperial core, the thing that always goes unsaid in all of their theory is the fact that scores of people, mostly disabled and elderly, would have to die pretty horrible deaths for their vision of society to come true.
