 Ok, hello everyone. I'm really excited today to mark this Earth Day and to demonstrate our support for environmental protection. I'm really glad and honored that today with us is co-founder of our organization, DM25, Democracy in Europe Movement. Outer of many works and among them is of course his latest After the Apocalypse, about which we will talk about and my big influence. So, Srećko, welcome here and thank you for being here with us and sorry again for such a late notice. Yeah, hi Dushan, I'm really glad to speak to you for this special day. This is also our first video for the campaign of Green New Deal on a separate channel and again thank you for being here. Let's go with the question of course about this big day, on Earth Day also Paris Agreement was signed five years ago. And as we see now, governments are planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with the limiting warming of two degrees Celsius and 120% more than would be consistent with the limiting warming to the 1.5 degrees. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry continues to grow with the handouts of governments and unprecedented support from private banks that actually funneled more than 2.7 trillion US dollars into fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement itself. So Srećko, what's your take on that and what is the purpose of these initiatives like Paris Agreement and Green Deal by you then? It's a good question. I mean, the Earth Day has been, you know, we have been celebrating it for years. The change is that a decade ago or two decades ago, Green Politics wasn't really at the center of a public debate. And thanks to the, mainly thanks to the children's climate movement, which is now unfortunately stuck in the digital space as most of us, but mainly thanks to them, Friders for Future, Greta, but also Extinction Rebellion and many other movements, including DM25. Now Green Politics and Ecology I think is at the center of politics. And what we can follow now is, I would say, a very interesting trend, which we actually have been warning. And this is the trend of Green Capitalism, of course. And both, I would say both the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal by the European Union point in that direction. It means that everyone now speaks about Green Politics, but it's of course not the same Green Politics. And as we love to remind of the words of Srećko Mendez, the great Brazilian activist, ecology without class struggle is like gardening. And that we can see these days, I think our duty today, responsibility today is precisely to put back the class struggle into ecology. Why? Because what we can see today is a sort of green washing, a sort of green capitalism, where everyone speaks about going green, which then in the practice very often means either exporting the polluting cars like diesel cars to the periphery of the European Union, while the center, the west of the European Union will go green. We in the Balkans will suffocate because of air pollution. At the same time, you can see that these, the figures you just mentioned, I mean, I would say that the pandemic, the COVID-19 crisis actually accelerated this. You know, at the beginning, everyone was kind of naive, happy, you know, the world suddenly stopped, air pollution went down and so on. But one year later, if you look at it, we will see that actually the pandemic served as a great accelerator also for green capitalism. It is sufficient to look at Tesla, for instance, or the rise of Silicon Valley companies, which are now playing with so-called green politics. But if you dig a bit deeper into it, what does it really mean, you know, that you buy your Tesla car in Bitcoin, in a cryptocurrency which spends 27 times more energy than Croatia, for instance. So I think we have a lot of contradictions to solve. I think it's not sufficient just to talk about the Green New Deal, because everyone these days speaks about the Green New Deal. We, of course, have an elaborated program for the Green New Deal for Europe. But I think we need to dig much deeper into it, because what we can see is that capitalism as always is co-opting all progressive politics, and then kind of turning it back into a different form, in a different form which will be again used for further consumerism. For instance, buying electric cars instead of buying fossil fuel cars without anyone asking the real question, why do we need cars at all, you know. And I think what DM's Green New Deal shows is that the Green New Deal is not just about using sustainable energy, green energy. It's also about what kind of transport do we need? Do we really need cars or can we build more trains, for instance? Do we need more private ownership, or do we need public ownership, or do we need public ownership, or do we rather need something what is called the commons? And I think this is a very good test for all green politics. If you look at the Green Deal by the European Union or other Green New Deals, I think it is the question of the commons, because the question of the commons directly touches upon the question of ownership and the question of management. And I think this is the most radical approach to green politics, I think is to revive the very concept of commons, which would be then applied not just to the nature, to resources, to other species, but it would be applied to air, to water, to the planet itself. And maybe since I already mentioned Elon Musk who recently described himself as the Imperator of Mars, I would say that the commons also have to be much broader and we have to take into account the space itself, because what we can see now is that the space might become a new frontier in the same way the oceans became a new frontier during imperialism and colonialism, in the same way now space is becoming also a source, not yet, but that's what they hope for, a source of extraction of valuable minerals. So I think that the concept of commons is very useful here. You raised so many questions in the right one, but basically my question would be, is that then the criteria for something to be called Green New Deal? What really makes Green New Deal new and green, because there are so many initiatives? Is that the commons, the class struggle or something else? Yeah, I would say both. I mean, that's my perspective, of course. Maybe you have a different perspective or someone in the M25 has a different perspective, but I would say both the class struggle and the commons. Why the class struggle and why the commons? The class struggle, of course, because even the billionaires like Warren Buffett always claim that there is a class struggle taking place, and the left or the greens are kind of shy to even speak about the class struggle, where the billionaires are not shy to speak about it, but they actually provoke and, well, they are realizing the class struggle every day. And on the other hand, the concept of commons, which of course is not a new concept, and it was mainly connected to the greens and to green politics, while at the same time the left was kind of shy to use this concept, I would say, with a few exceptions from David Hary and some other theories and so on. But my influence here is the great philosopher Ivan Ilich, who seems to be a bit forgotten today, but in 1983, the year when I was born, actually, he wrote a great text which is called Silence is a Commons, which I think resonates really well today. When you look at the last data, the last year, and that was maybe a good outcome of the pandemic, but let's not be too naïve and happy, that according to the scientists, the last year was the quietest year of the oceans, because this mega machine of global capitalism and transporting goods via big containers and ships was, for a short moment, stopped and then communicate again. I think, yeah, something was stopped with this no silence in the digital space. And what I like with Ilich's perspective, which is almost 30 years ago, 30 years ago he speaks about political ecology, 30 years ago he speaks about commons, but not commons just in the sense of the nature and natural resources, but also commons as silence. And I think this makes really sense today, because I think any political ecology which wants to be a word of its name has to go also in this direction to go much broader than just, you know, how do we manage the economy, what kind of resources do we extract, are we now turning from fossil fuel cars to electric cars and so on, but also to dig a bit more deeper into it and to see that also this space, which we are using now, is part of a sort of political ecology, is part of something which might be called commons, because today with the digital sphere and technology there is no silence anymore as we can see. Everything is being commodified, everything is being monetized, and then directly we come back to the so-called Green New Deal and political ecology in the sense that today we are at a stage where technology itself becomes an enemy to the nature. You know, I'm not against technology of course, but I think we have to pose serious questions in which way all the technology we use from these mega servers to mining of cryptocurrencies and so on is affecting the nature. And I think then of course we would also come back to the class struggle, because then the question is, while we in the west, I mean I'm not really in the west and I don't drive an electric car, but just as a phrase, you know, while we in the west drive electric cars, what will happen to the global south? And this is something that we have been warning all the time, you know, that a real Green New Deal has to take into account the deep inequalities between the global north and the global south, the deep contradictions of going green, which is always relying on a source of outsourcing the pollution for instance to some other countries. And I think these are really serious problems which we won't be able to solve in the next years, you know. But we have and that's the necessity why we need social movements, why we need class struggle, why we need internationalism to connect with other countries, which that are not even at the stage of a public debate on green politics like it is in the west. While in the west it is being caught that in some other places it still didn't even become a serious topic. So to answer your question, yes, I would say definitely on the one hand class struggle, and on the other hand the concept of the commons is a true measure of a Green New Deal. I couldn't agree more, but what from my perspective seems to be a big problem regarding the green initiatives is that it seems that really likely that someone always gets left behind. For example countries like Nigeria can derive 86% of its export revenue from oil and gas, while two-thirds of the population live below the poverty line. On the other hand, and I'm really happy that I can ask you these questions since I know that you covered this topic, non-human animals as well are usually in these green initiatives, widely neglected even though it's a big environmental and social justice problem. Then the question would be how to really be as inclusive and as comprehensive as possible. Thanks for this, it's a great question and it's close to my heart, not just because I'm vegetarian for more than 20 years now, and someone who could of course criticize me that I'm not vegan but I'm doing my best, and I think the liberation of animals and fight the struggle for the rights of animals should definitely be a crucial part of any Green New Deal. But if you look at the Green Deal of the European Union, of course you will never see animals there, except animals as resources again. But unfortunately sadly the same goes for many so-called progressive movements. Why is this so important? Because I think that for the last 100 years, the latest with the invention of the assembly line, which was in the first place actually invented in slaughterhouses, and then later Ford was using it for the production of cars, and later of course Hitler was using it as a principle of concentration camps. I would say with the invention of the assembly line in slaughterhouses we arrived at a stage of civilization where humans started to treat other species as merely a product, which can be just assembled or disassembled on the assembly line, and the very principle was with the assembly line that you have assembly line and each worker just deals with parts of the animals, so you don't even see the whole animal anymore, so the very process of killing becomes abstract. And in the same way if you do this to animals, that question is just a matter of time when you will do it with humans as well. To re-quote the old phrase that as soon as you start burning books, you will start burning people, I would say that as soon as you start killing animals, you will also start killing people. I think today we are at a stage where it's completely unnecessary to kill so many animals, actually in fact all the data shows that by breeding so many millions of animals just for human consumption we are actually contributing to climate crisis. So I think animal protection has to be at the core of green politics, but we should also go a step further in the sense that to understand that we have to fight not only for humanity but for all other species, including vegetables if you want, including the nature as such, not just animals, because I think if we go in that direction then we might arrive at a stage where we would understand that the biosphere itself is a living organism, that the planet itself is a living organism, and the only way to protect it is to stop commodifying the planet, so commodifying animals which then serve exclusively for consumption or in some cases as you know these kind of pets at home which we don't kill because we like them and they like us a bit or they pretend to like us. It's a great introduction for the next topic because you mentioned anthropocentries and also the commodification of everything and as you've written in your latest book I definitely recommend to our viewers commodification of apocalypse itself. For example, you are mentioning tourism in the Venice where people were coming to see big dives. Also a great example is Chernobyl of course with its tour and TV show around it and similar stuff and to me it seems that we have two possible pets. One is abandoning capitalism and other forms of oppression and the other is pursuing fetishism and commodification of apocalypse or apocalypses. Now the million dollar question is how to go for the first and not for the second. Yeah of course that's a big question and that's what we are all working at. I think there is a final answer to this because I think we need to involve various different perspectives. Of course perspectives which wouldn't be just western on the opposite perspective of indigenous communities who have been on the forefront of climate crisis who have been on the forefront of commodification of the apocalypse. We have to include different social movements who are dealing in different ways with this question of trying to arrive at a sort of post-capitalism and for me post-capitalism is not something which comes after capitalism but it can actually exist at the same time when capitalism still exists and I think this is crucial because I think very often activists movements and politicians even more frequently think and talk about the day after. My claim is there is no day after anymore. The apocalypse already happened. The apocalypse not in the sense of the end of the world but the apocalypse in the sense of a revelation and we've seen the revelation with Auschwitz, with Hiroshima, with Chernobyl, with Fukushima, with the climate crisis and with the pandemic. This is our revelation. These were the apocalypses of the 20th and 21st century which show that if we continue this way our only horizon is extinction. Unfortunately what we have today is that even this is being commodified. I mean the best example is for instance rare animal species. This is the best example of the commodification of the apocalypse where you have this whole global planetary trade of rare species who are going extinct and then reach people by some animal to have it as a trophy because this is the last living or the last 10 or 20 living species of that animal. I think that's a good example in which way humans can even commodify the apocalypse. Other examples is apocalyptic tourism which started with Pompeii but then you could have seen it with Chernobyl but you can see it also with other places and I think this is the biggest problem that capitalism is probably the most efficient system in world history when it comes to penetrating deeply into all spheres of the living world from human emotions, desires to the unconscious and to other species in order to commodify it, in order to turn it into a product, in order to sell it, in order to accumulate more money. And this apocalyptic side guys, you can see it with all these Silicon Valley dudes dreaming of either bunkers on New Zealand or escaping to Mars which again is a sort of commodification of the apocalypse. They don't really care that the world will end as long as they can accumulate money and dream of escapes from this world. And I think now it sounds as if we are not anymore in science fiction like it's becoming really reality where private entrepreneurs are sending satellites to space so even space will be privatized. I think it's a huge problem. So I think any political ecology has to take into account to come back to previous questions. Also the struggle for other species, the deconstruction of the Anthropocene because I'm critical of the term Anthropocene. I think it's a quite narcissistic concept which puts humans again in the center of everything. I think that was precisely the problem that the humans and humanity was put into the center of evolution. And if you look at the history of our planet which goes billions years back you will see that we are certainly not at the center. Of course we are now changing the geology of the planet. We are leaving a big effect on the planet but I wouldn't say that it is extraordinary but it shouldn't give us a feeling that we are so mighty because in 100 years or 500 years it might be as if we never existed. And perhaps maybe a new evolution will happen in the sense that something else, some other species will be created in the next 100 or 500 million of years. So I think in this sense we also need a long-term perspective to understand that the humans are certainly not the owners of the planet and that not everything is moving around us. So instead of the Anthropocene I think we should rather talk about the Capitalocene but also here I think we shouldn't be naive because it's not just capitalism which is a system which is extracting or expanding into the nature. It was socialism as well. You were Slavic or the Soviet. Socialist Russia were heavily industrialized countries. So we also have to pose these questions. I wouldn't say just the Capitalocene. It's much more than that. Okay, great ideas. And to wrap it up I would like to read one passage from your book. Oh my God. It's with the question in the very end but it really got an impression to me. It world as we know it is going to end at some point be it in 100 or 1000 years and it is in fact ending every day. It still doesn't help to end like this. It still doesn't help to end in suffocation because of the respiratory virus or by losing the right to breathe because of the virus of racism. Brutal police murderers and structural violence and the pandemic of capitalism. Air pollution, destruction of nature, meat consumption, climate crisis is another end of the world possible. I think it still is. I think it's pretty certain that we will reach the end of the world as we know it. I mean it won't be the end of the planet. It will be the end of the human animal world as we know it but it won't be the end of the planet. But it's pretty certain that we are reaching this end and that we live in in a sort of end time. Whether it will last 20 years or 100 or 200 we don't know but it is in this time that we have to create a different end of the world. In the same way maybe just for the end, in the same way we know very well that people we love will die someday. That's pretty certain. I didn't meet anyone who didn't die yet. Except maybe those in Silicon Valley who dream of singularity but they also still didn't reach it. So if it is certain that the people we love most are friends, our parents, our family or even people we don't know but we love them then the question is not just how to prevent it because it's impossible to prevent it. The question is how can we create such relations between the people we love which already now in the present would be based on equality, on solidarity, on mutual aid, on cooperation, on friendship and love. Not waiting for the day after they die and then looking back with nostalgia oh why didn't I spend more time with my father or my mother but to do it already today. And I think we should have this approach towards the end of the world as well. It's going to end, of course, this kind of world which we have today the planet will go on, who knows what will appear on the planet, what kind of species, maybe even aliens come, we have no clue but our duty is that today, not tomorrow, we try to live in a way which we wanted to live the day after tomorrow. So not to wait for the day after but to actually live it today even if the end is pretty certain. Thank you very much Sretzko, I really enjoyed it. Thanks Lucian, I enjoyed it, it was pretty fast. The time is not enough, yeah. Carpe diem.