It definitely criticizes industrial civilization as a whole but I think the portrayal is more focused on unsustainability than technology itself being bad.
Underrated Ghibli film, good picks overall
Have you seen Nausicäa? That 1 and Mononoke are my favorites. Miyazaki is at his best when he centers environmentalism
It was jarring to be reading the sub and see it banned right there and then. I click home to see more posts about what the admins were doing and -- poof. 
I don't know if it's possible to say one lens precedes the other, and if it is, the order is probably different for different people. Pornbrain may get you to right wing thought, or vice versa, but it's all from a deep feeling of insecurity and resulting pleasure from hierarchy.
They don't expect them go anywhere but 6 feet under the ground
I had the same experience, so I just googled "redsails Tupac shakur"
Create a large network of state and/or cooperatively owned cannabis farms to mass-produce hemp for industrial purposes, and every strain of quality marijuana known to man. You think the weed's too strong these days? That's ok, the state will devote its resources to developing 10% THC strains that taste like a gourmet meal. You want to be sent to the moon? Why yes, there will be 99.9% pure concentrate oils widely available.
Just as the USSR had an alcohol ration, there will be a mids ration available for all. Any unclaimed rations will be distributed to the gulags to forcibly pacify political prisoners. While high and marginally more open-minded, they will be made to play video games where every character is a black lesbian and all the messaging is based on post-colonial theory. Only after their daily shift constructing and tending the farms is finished, of course.
Any questions?
why you can immediately disregard any leftwing ‘activist’ who claims to enjoy either
:bait:
HauntedBySpectacle
joined 3 years ago
Isn't the inaction of Russia and Iran precisely proof that these bourgeois governments are more driven by their own interests than by principled anti-imperialism? This seems deeper to me than a strategic mistake. They are not stupid and they have powerful capabilities. What they also have are their own bourgeois and national interests.
I think there is a persistent false dichotomy among communists between the "Western left" position that all these powers are imperialist and so equally bad and undeserving of support, and the self-styled anti-imperialist position that only the Western bloc is imperialist and so its opponents are necessarily anti-imperialist. These opponents are playing a counterhegemomic role and still they aspire to imperialism or at the very least to their own capitalist development (IMO the latter necessarily implies the former, that's Marxism). It's not an either/or.
Russia and Iran simply will not self-sacrifice to the extent of the DPRK, Cuba, or currently the Yemenis. Why would these powers be consistent anti-imperialists when their system is built to sell out? Following bourgeois interests is the same reason Russia began to fight NATO in Ukraine in 2022 instead of 2014. Back then it was preferable to sell oil to Westerners than to fight imperialism.
It is true that Russia, Iran, & Syria under Assad are better than the alternative. I agree that it has been right to critically support them. This situation is an absolute disaster; Syria is on track for an Afghanistan/Libya style nightmare, and this is the clearest victory for Israel and its backers in over a year. But they are not communists and that is a clear reason why they act the way they do.
In my view, Russia intervened in Syria in 2015 because they wanted to maintain a partner in an increasingly Western-dominated Southwest Asia, they wanted the use of their ports, and they wanted the Syrian market to be more amenable to Russian than Western capital and weapons exports. They perceived the benefits as worth the costs. Now supporting Assad and the like would be good money following bad, so they won't do it. It is self-serving in the same way their betrayal of Armenia was. Let's not forget their historically close relationship with Israel either.
Bourgeois powers can be worthy of support over other bourgeois powers in a particular context, but that should not cloud our judgment to the point we are surprised when they do not give up capitalist development for the cause. In the case of Assad, part of the reason the war began in the first place was his government's neoliberal privatizations leading to mass popular discontent, which, as you know very well, the West promptly took advantage of to further destabilize and to promote Salafist insanity. (That is not incompatible with the Syrian government having no good options after the imperialist war began. I agree there's little they could have done past that pivot point; that should not be the focus of criticism.)
As an aside, this false dichotomy plays into the ridiculous turf war on this site between "doomers"/"bloomers". We need to break out of black and white thinking in general.