Oh, the capitalists didn’t do what their public relations exercises pretended they were going to do? Golly gee… no one could have seen that coming at all.
What a vague and silly comment, half the world’s top contributors to greenhouse gasses aren’t even capitalist countries. I get the fediverse isn’t a fan of capitalism, but you can’t just blanketly blame everything on it.
What makes me think that two countries that have never identified as capitalist and have never been identified as capitalist anywhere except for this crazy ass community where you just go ahead and label anything you don’t like simply as “capitalism”? Oh I don’t know, just a hunch I guess!
Well if you think ‘because they say so’ is reason enough there’s not really any further to go here I don’t think. I was hoping you’d have a more interesting answer about how the economy is structured or how resources are distributed. It looks more like an authoritarian flavour of capitalism to me but I’m no politics expert so I only have a layman’s view, more than happy to be corrected.
Dude, the reason you think they’re capitalist is because someone on Lemmy said so, I’m not going to put effort into correcting something that didn’t have evidence behind it to begin with. I’m not going to sit here and try to prove a negative to correct your layman’s view, that’s not how conversation works.
If you think those 2 are communist countries, you’re stuck in the last century. Let me give you some news. The Soviet Union collapsed and gave way to a capitalist oligarchy. China realized that capitalism is profitable and brings them tons of money from the west. I have no idea why tankies still simp those countries as communist (wait, I do actually - because tankies never had any principles of their own, they just wanted to be anti-west).
There is one country that needs to kickstart change for it to have any effect, it’s the US. Not only does it pollute the most per capita, it’s a huge market. My tiny ass country with fuel prices already being twice as much in the US, can raise fuel prices even more, but that won’t affect global demand. Americans no longer getting fuel for essentially free, would actually affect global demand.
There’s plenty of systems that mix both, but Russia and China aren’t actually good examples. They’re pretty capitalist.
If you want a better example of mixing capitalism with socialism, you can take a look at something like the Nordic countries, where there are tons of social services and safety nets, but there’s still a very strong (just regulated) free market.
And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. britannica.com/…/Which-countries-are-communist
And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. britannica.com/…/Which-countries-are-communist
Communist means ideologically communist. Because “countries which have built communism according to Marx with stateless society with common ownership of means of production” etc are like Zeno’s Achilles and turtle metaphor. Only I don’t get why would anybody use such an unreachable by design criterion to judge on the effect of communist ideology on societies.
There are gradations between “everything” and “critical mass” as well, and part of it is “private” property which can be easily confiscated or in some other way transferred to a more loyal person, just the system has mechanisms to prevent killing the golden goose (for now, it seems comrade Xi has some ideas with potential to affect this).
I mean, if you consider Nazi Germany capitalist, then China is too.
Anyway, it all depends on terminology. Some people think that “war communism” is the closest to real communism the world has seen. For others it’s not communism at all, because they don’t forget that “stateless” part. While Makhno’s republic is that. For others the Nordic countries are almost like communism.
Just like with Christianity, with Communism we should trace all branches of the tree, not just discard everything we don’t like as schismatic.
Because capitalism with state protection is not capitalism I guess.
In each, we’re talking about capitalism with the caveat that the owners of the country want a kickback too, and in return local capitalists are protected from foreign capitalists. Vladimir Putin owns Russia, the CCP owns China. In neither case does capital belong to “the people” as a whole.
Yes, it’s not. I mean, for Marxists it is, because Marx describes something similar specifically to XIX century Germany with state-supported enormous trusts, influential aristocracy, and so on. Which is for obvious reason of living there, just not very relevant, because real economists use the term differently.
In neither case does capital belong to “the people” as a whole.
Well, CCP is not different from CPSU in this case.
Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?
I never set out to argue that capitalism doesn’t exist in countries that aren’t primarily capitalist.
The country that produces the most greenhouse gases is doing so to satisfy the demands of private industry that’s producing goods for private profit. What part of that is not capitalism?
Also the country that produces the most per capita, is arguably the most capitalist country, the USA.
While I agree that per capita emissions is a useful metric, perhaps even more useful than raw emissions numbers, where are you getting that the USA has the highest production per capita?
This table shows data from 2018 so things change, but the per capita emissions would have had to double in five years to put the USA on top.
If you look at the non-per capita numbers, the USA is the second largest emitter behind China (using data from 2018).
Good point, I was a bit inaccurate with my last comment.
If you look at the non-per capita consumption based emissions and divide that by the amount of people, you’ll find that Americans consume way more per capita.
China has the bigger (even per capita) number in terms of production, but they export a lot of what they produce, whereas Americans get all their shit from China and can then claim China has the worse emissions.
Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?
That’s not necessarily the case. The pollution comes from where manufacturing is, not necessarily where consumption is. The demand is coming from capitalist countries.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism” with no evidence or reasoning to back it up. You’ve made assertions that countries that political experts don’t consider primarily capitalist countries are actually capitalist countries with no evidence to back them up. I don’t have to waste my time disproving your flaky nonsense, calling it out is good enough for me.
And what part of this conversation makes you feel like the intelligent subject matter expert here? The part where you said liberals shouldn’t use certain words? Keep it up bud, appreciate you helping me decide which communities to filter out here.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism”
Lol! It’s aliens, right? Climate change is caused by aliens? Is that your angle here?
I don’t have to waste my time
I agree… you don’t have to flail blindly and ignorantly because you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You can get a clue any time you feel like.
Your ignorance is either naive or contrived. I don’t care enough to investigate which one it is… I only care that your shitty take is understood for what it is. Aaaaand… that seems to be the case.
Think it’s funny that you’re losing your damn mind over there replying aggressively because you can’t leave a comment unreplied to, but I’m the one “flailing” right?
It’s alway surprising that liberals don’t realise that liberalism is a right-wing ideology. They can’t have read the main liberal tracts and treatises because the connection is clear. It could be a US thing, where liberal is used to describe Dems and conservative, Republicans. So liberal is ‘left’ in the states, where it’s the left-faction of the capitalist party. What most people don’t realise is that Conservatives still self-identify as one or another type of liberal and they almost all, ‘left’- and ‘right’-leaning liberal refer to the same handful of books as the basis of their ideology. That’s because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, fundamentally opposed to socialism.
Users are attributing climate change to “capitalism” with no evidence or reasoning to back it up.
Have one (very liberal capitalist) brief source presenting some evidence to how capitalism is to blame. Then have a very short summary write-up on how China has been the world leader in combating climate change. Happy?
Do you think a tankie would say China is a capitalist nation? Liberalism really is worse than brain cancer. They are either an anarchist or some other shit, you just see the names of the enemies of the empire and scream, you poor ignorant Gringo.
The United States has double China’s emissions per capita, and China actually is the world leader in the production of sustainable development products like solar panels even though the USA had a 150 year head start in its industrialisation. Despite whatever criticisms you may have against China, looking only at total emissions is definitely misleading. China’s renewable power has gone up fivefold in the past 15 years in absolute numbers and double in percentage of total production. The USA hasn’t even been building hydro dams since the 80s, while China has built some 15 in the past 20 years. Since one is explicitly the most capitalist country and the other is “”“capitalist actually”“”, I think it is fair to say that capitalism has a negative correlation with fighting climate change.
Though I have no idea why you included the Russian Federation there, since it is a capitalist oligarchy created by and modelled after the USA. Do you believe that Russia is communist by any chance?
Yeah, think of it like a corporation. Instead of shares, you have votes and taxes.
Everyone in the military can vote on the actions of that military. Although, so can everyone not in the military. And the number of votes don't correspond to how many shares you can buy, because it's more equal than capitalism.
Americans vote for representatives who determine when and where the military gets involved. But even if it had been subject to a direct vote, the outcome would be the same.
Just as there are hordes of idiots on the right who call anything they don't like "socialism", there are a few idiots - primarily teenagers - on the left who call anything they don't like "capitalism".
After the supreme court invalidated Roe v Wade, I attended a rally. I walked away when one of the speakers started shouting "We know what the real problem is...capitalism!" and all the university kids started cheering.
I love the enthusiasm and your heart's in the right place but y'all are dumber than a bag of bowling balls.
You can have industrialized production and consumerism without capitalism. Not that I’m defending capitalism, I just think our problem is deeper than what you make it, and human nature combined with unchecked technological ability to remodel out planet would yield the same outcome, no matter the dominant flavor of our economical structure.
I’d recommend looking into how indigenous people have historically dealt and wish to deal with climate change before claiming much about “human nature”. A lot of so-called “human nature” is just the universalisation of European capitalist values. I suggest starting by reading about the Red Deal, specially if you’re from the USA.
Although interesting, I don’t think your link is the gotcha counterexample you think it is. Previous civilizations caused environmental collapses without having capitalism to blame for it. We could switch overnight to soviet style communism and that would not solve anything if our expectation is to provide everyone on earth with their today’s living standards. We could blame greed, selfishness and that would take us closer to the truth, but even that would be very shortsighted. We would need all humans on earth to be united around a same goal and same path forward, and share the same willingness to sacrifice. No sect or religion has ever achieved that and never will (we are just so many, and spread that wide).
Looking at the world from the lens of an economic ideology alone only gets you so far. Wrong tool for the job.
Not sure what you’re talking about on “sect or religion” when referring to different cultures doing things differently. The link is not some “gotcha” Reddit moment, it is a good source for you and others to start questioning this notion of “human nature” given that lots of humans have been questioning this very same “human nature” dogma since it was imposed on them by Europeans starting 500 years ago and continuing to this day. Notably you shifted the discussion to talk about the Soviet Union, which has nothing to do with my point and doesn’t even exist anymore. Just because nameless “previous civilisations” caused uncited “environmental collapses”, doesn’t mean that every civilization works by the same rule. Specially considering this current environmental catastrophe is on a whole different level and we have current day civilizations that would love to prevent it, if only they got their Land Back.
Mind telling me what this One Goal of yours might be and how it could be possible within capitalism? The ones who have the most to sacrifice are those at the top, ghettoised minorities will go mostly unharmed in most actually practical solutions.
Looking at the world while compartmentalising the overarching mode of production will only get you solutions from that overarching mode of production. You were quick to dismiss it as the wrong tool, but what is the right tool then?
Is it weird that I have the feeling that I’m arguing with a bot? I don’t see what’s hard to understand: the whole premise of this thread is that the cause and solution to climate change is inherently bound to capitalism, and my point is that taking this approach to explain and remedy it is very limiting because capitalism itself is no basis to describe how societies impact their environment (it only describes who owns what in an economy).
When I talk about human nature, it’s because I’m convinced that (and there’s anthropological evidence for) any larger society to inevitably contain selfish individuals with exploitative and sociopathic tendencies, and individuals who can’t get enough when someone else has more than they have (same reason there are cold blood and serial killers all around the world). My opinion is that any rule of law society has the means to limit the power and negative impacts of those individuals, and this extends to corporations who are ultimately led by humans who we should collectively make accountable for their actions on behalf of the organization they lead. There is absolutely no need to bring capitalism into this, and colonialism even less so.
When I talk about sects and religions, it is to emphasize the fact that humanity has never been a uniform species and probably never will be. Tackling climate change in this context in a relevant time-frame will require to exert the current power structures no matter what.
And I don’t pretend to have a solution for climate change, all I’m sure about is that the actual solution is more elaborate than blind antagonism.
It sure is weird since chatGPT is not as advanced as me yet. It also doesn’t like communism. Sadly bots are made by the very same corporations I have issues with.
Compartmentalising the impacts of a mode of production in a society is usually how we get into a bind on trying to tackle problems that arise from them. They are not just “who owns what” but also dictate how humanity and society produces and therefore reproduces. Large urban factories were not a possibility nor desirable under feudalism or North American indigenous collectivism. When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
So here’s some examples to illustrate. Due to the arbitrary concept of “private property” inherent to capitalism, lithium mines in the Lithium Triangle can be owned by foreign corporations. That means that despite those mines directly affecting the lives of the local communities (which includes most workers there), they are kept there and protected by world governments no matter how much they protest. That is an anti-democractic use of the local resources that can’t easily happen under either communism, anarchism or collectivism and yet is the norm under global capitalism.
Another example is the production of sugar, which relies on both work conditions akin to slavery but also constant burning of the plant that wrecks the local ecology. Populations who work producing sugar cane (in particular slaves) have revolted against that in favour of self-sustainable agriculture since sugar monocultures have been a thing, and yet they have had little power to change that economy without also locally abolishing capitalism. These often come with foreign invasions, as was the case of Haiti.
And finally in the case of the Paris Accords, the big majority of Unitedsadians supported staying in it, and yet the USA left it either way. The people who will suffer and die due to ecological crises of any scale are usually the workers and not the owners. That means that if the workers are in charge of production rather than the owners, it is easy to see how they’ll be more willing to change that production to prevent harm to themselves, even if you ascribe to individualism as a natural human trait.
There is absolutely a need to bring capitalism into this, and even more its birth in colonialism and descent into imperialism. There can be no “accountability of the bourgeoisie” if we live in a dictatorship of this same bourgeoisie. The slave masters didn’t bend over backwards to help the slaves, and the kings have routinely sent levies en masse to their deaths. We shouldn’t expect any different from our current rulers. One obvious example of a communist (“anti-capitalist” if you object to that label) nation that has done the most to combat climate change is the PRC. On the other hand the übercapitalist United States is historically the worst at that. This is not coincidence.
And on the matter of “human nature”. As I’ve pointed out before and that you’ve not acknowledged, many natural human societies parallel to European and settler ones have long pushed back against this backwards pseudoscientific notion. In order to make any universal rules for whatever domain you’d need to have complete information about it. However not a single person knows all known history, and all known history doesn’t even include all actual history. It is typical of those who know little history to make bold proclamations about how “humans have always been a certain way” against humans that are a different way right before one’s own eyes.
Your position seems to have softened to say that the issue is “selfish people controlling corporations”, but that assumes that corporations themselves are universal concepts. Either way, the existence of selfish people doesn’t automatically imply that all modes of production and equally vulnerable to it, and liberal capitalism in itself exists on the principle that all people should focus on self-interest and selfishness. It is no surprise that a system that was developed to effectively colonise a land, genocide its people, exploit workers and extract every local resource only for short-term profit will end up doing just that.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism. The very least you can do is read (and by that I mean actually read in depth) of those who actually have ideas. The Red Deal link is meant only as an introduction for something which I assume is from your country, feel free to develop your understanding further in whichever direction you want. Even if you come up with a solution under capitalism, it’ll be a start. Just don’t come back with no solutions while complaining that others’ solutions are not good enough.
When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.
good that you and OP are convinced that “our society’s organization over production” links climate change to “capitalism”, but my point is that it is probably not as simple as you make it to be, and I still don’t see any evidence of causation for this exceptional claim.
My “hot take” is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment. The main difference is the scale at which we do it now, which is leveraged by our progress in science which permits the usage of large amounts of readily available energy.
The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history). link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02664569 : here you see how ancient Chinese dynasties caused environmental collapses forcing large populations relocations. You may not want to call this human nature, but humans have since forever poked at things without understanding consequences, and with ever larger populations and techniques, the bigger the blowbacks. Capitalism had nothing to do with that: it didn’t provide the means, it didn’t provide the motive, it didn’t provide the opportunity.
And yes, I understand how tempting it is to look at the problem under the lens of current ideas and ideologies, but this is just cheap presentism.
To close on the subject, I am not a climate change denialist, and I am certainly not a capitalism apologist. I am a strong believer that people in future generations will keep poking at things without understanding the consequences. All I hope is that those future generations will be wise enough (i.e. have enough understanding of the world/advances in science, and enough safeguards against demagogic and other unsound ideals) to mitigate the negative impacts.
If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism.
Fair. I cannot pretend that I have a single “cookie-cutter” solution for a complex global issue that’s been going on for centuries and whose effects and remedial actions will affect every single individual on earth. I still think I stand higher than those that claim to have such a solution while having their nose and mouth delved into local political matters of no global relevance. I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn’t try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).
My “hot take” is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment.
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world. Global imperialism is essential to this global crisis and no country would be exporting most of its resources to some foreign power to the detriment of its own people if they were not organised in a capitalist fashion. We already have many measures like hydro power that would be much less harmful to the environment but are not as profitable to the property owners as oil and therefore are not properly explored. “We” is already a loaded term because humanity was incredibly diverse in its organisations of society before the 19th century, but this whole crisis is caused mainly by our production methods, not their scale.
The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history).
I think I see the misunderstanding here. The point is not that ecological catastrophes are only caused by Capitalism, but this one in specific is directly caused by it. If people owned the means of production they wouldn’t force themselves into a catastrophe we all know is happening. We already understand the consequences in this current case, but just so happen to be ruled by a bourgeoisie that is more interested in fleeing to Mars than actually solving these issues. I fail to see how there could be any solution to this crisis without ending the control of a select few over the entire production of the world to our detriment, which is capitalism.
And for you to claim that something like this is “human nature” you don’t need to just provide a couple of historical examples of ecological catastrophes caused by humans (even ones they knowingly did it), but to show that there has never been the case where humans changed course to avert one, or something of the sort.
I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn’t try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).
It would be pretentious to predict the economic effects in a manifesto from those who are not (and will likely never be) in power. If you want actual numbers you can look at how China has been leading the world in green energy production. As I said before, that one was specifically to push back against “human nature” causing this crisis when some very natural humans want to do the exact opposite but can’t specifically because of settler capitalism. Humans want to fight the climate crisis, except for those few property holders who see this as an “opportunity.”
Also what’s with “opinions”? Do you expect some lab somewhere to do an experiment proving if redacting landlords has positive or negative correlations with emissions? Social decisions are based on historical analysis which would be too long for a 30 minute interview. Since you got so interested you replied to me 8 days later and want more of those juicy facts, you can go read their actual whole book on it their positions in depth. Part 3 does a better job explaining it than I could in a single lemmy reply.
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead. And they were largely affecting their environment in the process (if not at a climate level yet). I cited some ancient Chine dynasties, but the same could be said about every large ancient civilization, just to name few, the Incas, the Romans, the Mongols, the Indus, …: it is very much the same thing.
Trade was equally happening at a large-scale millennia ago (in the Eurasian continent, but in the Americas as well. As I said in my previous post, its impact on global warming was only milder because we only knew about “renewable” energies back then (horse riding and sailing is pretty close to carbon neutral, when there were mere millions individual on earth back then).
All we are observing now is, as I said, more of the same thing, but at a larger scale, because we since discovered the atmosphere-warming and polluting machines and energies that are of widespread-use today. For the rhetoric about capitalism to convince me, you would have to prove that the current situation would only be permitted under capitalism, and all I see is history pointing the other way. And if other systems can lead to the same outcome, then this whole thing isn’t about the system itself, but something “deeper” that would be left unresolved, and all you would have accomplished would be akin to “shooting the messenger”, leaving room for another unsatisfying alternative to emerge.
It would be pretentious to predict the economic effects in a manifesto from those who are not (and will likely never be) in power.
It is certainly not. That’s what organisms like the IPCC have been doing for decades: working on models to predict the future climate with as much certainty and accuracy as our understanding of physics possibly allows. It has this pretty neat thing about itself that it doesn’t care about your, or mine, opinions and political orientations, skipping entire avenues for unproductive debate and distractions. The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …). The rest is semantics and games.
Honestly I’m kinda tired of this because you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Actually put an effort to understand what I’m saying to be able to argue against it properly, please. Add to that actually reading before you write.
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead.
Re-read what I wrote:
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
At no point in history have we had cross-continental conflicts over control of oil deposits before industrialisation. No AES country today does those either. And again, for something to be “human nature” you don’t need evidence of a significant number of civilisations doing something. You need to show that the opposite has never happened.
The global market of fossil fuel is only perpetuated today by capitalist interests against the democratic wishes of the workers. I don’t particularly care about any pre-factory man-made ecological catastrophe because what I (and others here) argue is that this specific one is being perpetuated by the undemocratic owning of the means of production. There can be no redirecting of the economy towards democratic interests under capitalism because the economy itself is not democratic.
In our current specific case we have loads of research on what can be done to avoid catastrophe, and even the specific betrayed pledges on this article. Or the other source I and others provided. It is an unique event in the history of humanity and we’re sleepwalking into it because we can’t risk profit line going down, not due to lack of knowledge or any inherent human desire for all humans worldwide.
It is certainly not. That’s what organisms like the IPCC have been doing for decades: working on models to predict the future climate with as much certainty and accuracy as our understanding of physics possibly allows.
Congratulations, you equated a political group representing indigenous people who have no legal power in the USA with a governmental research group. The IPCC doesn’t make manifestos nor do they advocate for political action, despite suffering from intense lobbying from both corporations and political parties. They work specifically under the framework of liberal capitalism and the directives of the USA government and bourgeois interest, even if the individual researchers are often honest and diligent.
It has this pretty neat thing about itself that it doesn’t care about your, or mine, opinions and political orientations, skipping entire avenues for unproductive debate and distractions.
I could laugh but I guess some people out there really think that “political orientations” are unproductive for deciding what to do politically. How useful are all of their reports if they are not put into practice through politics? And how politically diverse is the IPCC? Every single thing in society is political, specially when it comes to society and economy. You can’t reasonably expect to solve this is issue by relying only on the USA government body and assuming that whatever comes out of there is “apolitical.” How “productive” are those reports if there is no political will to put their recommendations in practice?
The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …).
Do go on, what “actionable goals” have been committed to and are being enforced right now in capitalist countries? Which ones are even likely to stay in force after an election cycle? How have capitalist countries fought against climate change when it went against the profit of their ruling class? The gist of it all is that all of those “actionable goals” need to be enforced politically, which has shown to be impossible (or at least very unsuccessful) under liberal capitalism over the past 30 years we’ve been aware of this crisis. Compare it with China.
Honestly I’m kinda tired of this because you seem to be deliberately missing the point.
I mean, I hear you, but from my perspective, you are the one missing the point: I replied to you in a more general case…
There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead.
…but you keep bringing back the discussion to modern specifics without explaining why they somehow contradict the broader thesis:
A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.
Your argumentation is presentist and mine is anthropogenic/historic.
I don’t particularly care about any pre-factory man-made ecological catastrophe because what I (and others here) argue is that this specific one is being perpetuated by the undemocratic owning of the means of production.
Indeed, but my point is that you very much should. Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence. On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
This is the crux of the issue here: you propose change for what looks the sake of change, whereas I’m more interested in understanding why we are where we are now, despite all our knowledge, but still unable to move. That is, so we finally get a chance to break the circle and not just burn the world down in yet another desperate revolution.
The IPCC doesn’t make manifestos nor do they advocate for political action
Which is why they matter, they come before in the decision process, so that any serious manifesto or political action gets some amount of legitimacy and bearing in the physical world that we collectively live in.
, despite suffering from intense lobbying from both corporations and political parties. They work specifically under the framework of liberal capitalism and the directives of the USA government and bourgeois interest, even if the individual researchers are often honest and diligent.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies, by being the largest venue for the best scientists of this world to convene on the subject, and I have no reason to believe that their methods have been corrupted. If you have any evidence of that, please offer it for the sake of our common good. If you don’t, please go away with your FUD, or, better, put together a more qualified and adequate team.
Another easy argument to be said is that this same panel (corroborated by independent studies) came to the conclusion that stopping climate change would be more beneficial for the world economies (and the current world order that you despise as a result) than not doing anything. Which kind of makes sense in light of the ever worse food and water wars, wildfires and destructive weather. Nobody wins.
I could laugh but I guess some people out there really think that “political orientations” are unproductive for deciding what to do politically.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …).
Do go on, what “actionable goals” have been committed to and are being enforced right now in capitalist countries? Which ones are even likely to stay in force after an election cycle? How have capitalist countries fought against climate change when it went against the profit of their ruling class? The gist of it all is that all of those “actionable goals” need to be enforced politically, which has shown to be impossible (or at least very unsuccessful) under liberal capitalism over the past 30 years we’ve been aware of this crisis.
Good points, really. Then the argument should be turned into “why were those actionable goals not implemented”.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on. Like I said in another post, sects and religions. We are not geared-up as a species for reacting rationally in this scenario. We have never been confronted to such a threat, and required to exhibit such an amount of coordinated sacrifice. All we need is to prove that we are better at survival than lemmings. And sorry again for finding ludicrous the idea that taking out capitalism would do anything of substance.
Your argumentation is presentist and mine is anthropogenic/historic.
cute words for saying that I’m focusing on how to solve this specific crisis while you’re philosophising over the tragedy of human nature and pretending you don’t like capitalism while defending it till kingdom come.
Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence.
A lot of people here have presented the evidence, you just chose to disregard it because it’s “too political.” You have yet to explain how the capitalist ruling class are doing anything to combat climate change (as we can see from the article they are just doubling down), while a majority of people support actually doing something about it. Like I said, look at all the AES/anti-imperialist countries and their track records on fighting climate change. Is it not evidence for you that China is leading the world in production of green energy? You’re probably just gonna ignore this again and claim “no evidence!”, which is why I’m tired of this discussion.
On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
Now you’re moving the goalpost from fighting this specific climate crisis to preventing all ecological crises forever. I don’t care enough to argue that point, even if I have strong opinions about it, because it’s so beside the point that it would be a waste of my time. It seems almost intentional ngl.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
Okay yeah you have no idea how organising society works. Good luck doing anything in your life while ignoring your own opinions, or worse, equating them to scientific facts. What is your opinion on the IPCC, I wonder.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies
Oh yeah, there is nothing political about allocating which kinds of research gets done or doesn’t. Science is just a soup that we throw money at and stir around and funny theorems and statistics boil out. I bet your history also relies only on completely objective first sources that speak for themselves without any human interpretation. Humans, politics, groups and interests play no part in any of that, which is why the IPCC definitely does a yearly survey of the carbon footprint of expropriating every 1% property and instating a dictatorship of proletariat, obviously. Gringo, please.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on.
Oh look, a lot of political and social questions. All of those are valid of consideration, but the overarching system in which those are embedded isn’t because it’s “opinionated.” Please feel free to quantify scientifically how much influence dead people’s laws should have in society. The IPCC must have a couple of papers on it.
buncha wikipedia links
buncha wikipedia links
And sorry again for finding ludicrous the idea that taking out capitalism would do anything of substance.
Feel free to believe whatever you want. Unlike the material world and societal organisations, which can be moulded through collective decisions based on public opinions, your bourgeois overlords don’t really care much about your opinion of what should be done to society. So long as you keep consuming as they want, they’ll barely even think of you, and capitalist society will keep trudging on towards the 4ºC mark. Sorry for finding ludicrous the idea of trying to prove that a crisis the likes of which has never happened before, being exacerbated by the structure of our society despite overwhelming public support to prevent it, isn’t related to this societal structure, but only by citing a bunch of unrelated crises from previous modes of production, without providing any proof that it can be solved under this current system.
I’ve provided some evidence of communism being a better alternative, you have provided literally zero evidence of the contrary. Haven’t even acknowledged what I brought to the table, much less argued over it. Until you can actually show me some solution that is actually working under capitalism, keep reading Wikipedia and pretending to be an specialist in everything from anthropology to meteorology.
Riddle me this: What is, in your factual scientific opinion, that which is preventing humanity to actually combat global warming and climate change as they overwhelmingly want to? The answer will say a lot.
(edit: had to split the post because of reaching max limit)
cute words for saying that I’m focusing on how to solve this specific crisis while you’re philosophising over the tragedy of human nature and pretending you don’t like capitalism while defending it till kingdom come.
I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?
Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence.
A lot of people here have presented the evidence, you just chose to disregard it because it’s “too political.”
Where is this evidence again? If we are still talking about climate change here, and not diverting into a political crusade, we can just look at the emissions causing the warming, their main cause, and find that they map to an exponential increase of human activities since the industrial revolution. Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce. This is life in its most quintessential aspect, the very same you would observe in a Petri dish. Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?
You have yet to explain how the capitalist ruling class are doing anything to combat climate change (as we can see from the article they are just doubling down), while a majority of people support actually doing something about it.
No, YOU have to back the exceptional claim that this has anything to do with capitalism. The fact that the ruling class opposes change is pretty much what defines it: elites wants to preserve their status. You and I have a problem with conservatism, not capitalism, unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.
Like I said, look at all the AES/anti-imperialist countries and their track records on fighting climate change. […] China is leading the world in production of green energy
On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?
Now you’re moving the goalpost from fighting this specific climate crisis to preventing all ecological crises forever. I don’t care enough to argue that point, even if I have strong opinions about it, because it’s so beside the point that it would be a waste of my time. It seems almost intentional ngl.
The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.
Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.
Okay yeah you have no idea how organising society works. Good luck doing anything in your life while ignoring your own opinions, or worse, equating them to scientific facts. What is your opinion on the IPCC, I wonder.
I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.
I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies
Oh yeah, there is nothing political about allocating which kinds of research gets done or doesn’t. Science is just a soup that we throw money at and stir around and funny theorems and statistics boil out.
So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.
You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on.
Oh look, a lot of political and social questions. All of those are valid of consideration, but the overarching system in which those are embedded isn’t because it’s “opinionated.”
You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?
Please feel free to quantify scientifically how much influence dead people’s laws should have in society. The IPCC must have a couple of papers on it.
I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.
your bourgeois overlords don’t really care much about your opinion of what should be done to society. So long as you keep consuming as they want, they’ll barely even think of you, and capitalist society will keep trudging on towards the 4ºC mark.
Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly? Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future. My problem is that your discourse is not nearly as polished as you make it to be, and shooting the messenger without addressing the core of the issue will not give you legitimacy and support. I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise. Unlike some stereotypes, we were not “brainwashed” during the cold war into believing that the world must exist in an extreme form of either communism or capitalism. Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life because without specifics (which this thread is lacking en masse), this is just an abstract construct. Market laws (offer vs supply) do, but this is trade, this doesn’t equate capitalism, and I think I already made that point clear.
I’ve provided some evidence of communism being a better alternative
I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.
Riddle me this: What is, in your factual scientific opinion, that which is preventing humanity to actually combat global warming and climate change as they overwhelmingly want to? The answer will say a lot.
I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Part of which you already got in my paragraph about the “easy culprits” (people being scared of change, etc) which still stands. I believe there are many large issues, the fact that most people are in denial about it is a significant one: no matter what we do now, we will collectively take a huge cut in our quality and comfort of life for the centuries to come; pensions, property titles, diplomas, insurances, … will become meaningless and that’s a tough one to swallow. Most people are just incapable to imagine such a world, and won’t react until too late. Then comes the fact that most countries have experienced the late stage of their demographic shift: you get a large population of elderly and politicians representing them who won’t get to live through the hardship of climate change, and who have little to no incentive to do anything about it. Then comes the fact that this is a global phenomenon that affects all countries unequally but requires all of them to agree, commit, and execute toward a common goal. We have no global instance with the legitimacy to oversee and arbitrate in this context, and I doubt there will ever be one. This post is long-enough but I think you got the gist.
The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.
First staunch flow, then treat infection, then do a course on first aid. If you do it the other way around you just die, though you at least get to be smug about it.
I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.
Vivid is a strange synonym for “sarcastic.” If you actually think anything can be done in an organised social society while ignoring opinions by looking only at “science,” I’m pretty sure you have no idea how anything, be it societal actions, be it actual research, gets done in practice. Have you ever heard the phrase “expert’s opinion,” or do you think data is some kind of holy word from god that speaks in tongues by itself?
You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?
Nope. You pretend don’t want to deal with social questions that are impossible to measure, yet most of your questions you want answers for are exactly those. Which follows with:
I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.
Showing that you have no idea how social sciences work. You yourself listed dead people’s laws, which is why I pointed it out as absurd to measure scientifically. It’s on you to actually provide some data-only opinion-less analysis that measures the impact of social concepts such as these, but spoilers, you won’t find anything of value. They are unmeasurable and so are based on our human understanding which comes from studying and understanding many different perspectives and interpretations. There is no single “correct factual way” in social studies for the vast majority of cases, which is why I mocked your naïveté there. Good luck “factually” finding answers to your questions of interest in your future job at the IPCC.
Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly?
Leave your computer device, pick your car, go to the supermarket, but some plastic with food in it, go back to your apartment, pay your rent, buy new electronic devices, maybe contract Hello Fresh because you don’t have time to shop groceries or watch yet another multimillion Marvel production from your ever-increasing backlog. Then come back and tell me which of those things are absolutely necessary for you. Specially considering the human and ecological cost to all of those things that you probably ignore daily.
Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future.
Best ally seems incredibly unlikely, what do you even do to help? Vote?
I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise.
I’d like you to actually define socialism because we have a bunch of libs thinking the NHS is socialism running around. Also not sure what “highly-educated” has to do with anything. Weird flex.
Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life
lol
I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.
Did on the other one. Either way if you want me to get a USA government body to analyse the carbon benefit of toppling the USA, you’re gonna have to help me crowdfund it. I and others have shown here how capitalism is preventing us from democratically fighting climate change. Unless you know of some way to bypass those hurdles within capitalism (please don’t say “vote harder”), it naturally follows that abolishing capitalism is at least the only alternative we know.
I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Proceeds to blame the victim.
Have a read from scientific material. This might help you stop blaming civilians with no power.
So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.
For that you’d need to have linked literally any research for me to deny it. You have only named the IPCC randomly without providing any specific article, and I have not denied the truth of the only one you actually provided (the ancient China one). If you think science is only looking at pretty graphs in OWID and pretending that’s the whole picture, you might be a bit out of your league here, and that is why you’re so set on your positions while being so vague and abstract about the issue at hand. I say this as an actual researcher, though not of physics or meteorology.
Every research institution has a bias, research is made by humans and they have limited resources to allocate to every avenue of research. Even simple stuff like choosing one metric over another is a source of bias that needs to always be taken into account in any serious research. I don’t think it’s that important to prove that “the IPCC is biased” knowing that, and again you have not even provided a direct source from the IPCC for that to be relevant. Research has to take account of a multitude of sources and be very aware of what is and is not actually being studied, as well as paying attention to whether experiments are shown to be reproducible. You might notice that the IPCC provides recommendations as well as data, and since the data collection methods, the analysis already always contain some biases, the recommendations themselves will have even more as they are based on (very informed) opinion. Being biased isn’t a bad thing, it is natural, but failing to account for it is the problem. Not sure why liberals and laypeople keep getting this wrong.
But I guess I’ll humour you. 1, 2, 3, 4. Those are very well known cases of meddling.
Edit: btw, if you don’t want to split posts (please don’t because they’re annoying for me to reply to), then don’t quote yourself from two replies ago. I can just go check it, as I repeatedly do, and you’re just wasting space.
I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?
by not wasting time talking about things that are unrelated. If you’re bleeding you first stop the flow, not try to find how to create steel skin. By focusing so much on abstract concepts and your liberal view of history, you’re avoiding talking about this specific issue. Funnily enough though you still insist in pretending you’re interested in it at all.
Where is this evidence again?
here. And here. Also all the other ones. “what evidence???”.
Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce.
Look at this photo fucking graph. Now this one. One is up by like 6 times while the other one is almost a 100, so they’re not proportional. “where’s evidence?”
Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?
Bacteria, famous for having governments, research institutions and social organisations. They also have opinions on the concept of private property and knowledge of their limited resources.
unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.
Wait you don’t? Then disprove it, please, since it’s so easy.
First, I will laugh at the association of “China” with “anti-imperialist country”.
When was the last China-backed regime change? Then compare it with the last talks of doing a regime change in China itself. And then look into all the partnerships that China has through the BRICS and show how they were actually imperialist all along. Take your time.
The country generated 56.2% of its electricity using fossil fuels last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, down from 63% in 2021. China’s “ultralow emission, coal-fired capacity” reached 1,050 GWs, and its renewable energy capacity amounted to 1,200 GW – nearly doubling capacity from five years earlier.
Third one I have no idea how you got “median” of the mix out of it or what you mean by that. It’s even per capita. Change from relative to absolute and click the "play button and you’ll see how quickly China has caught up on green energy production within just the last 20 years while the others stagnated. Also note how much energy Europe and the USA consume per capita compared to the world median.
Fourth one at least is interesting, but I think the tragedy here is how a rapidly developing country under a trade war is being blamed for not having access to the resources it needs to develop further. It sure would be lovely if the Capitalist developed countries exported their technology to help China develop its green energy further, but instead they have been blocking critical tech exports there. I guess we need to ignore that because it’s political.
Either way, it’s also very important to be careful when jumping between different metrics such as total, per capita and per KWh. Trying to consider all of those in a black or white manner will lead you to awkward and subtle mistakes and syllogisms. Here’s a very well researched article that goes in depth on how the CPC is leading the way into actually producing more carbon-efficient energy. This twitter thread also has a lot of reading material on how China has been on a gigantic green energy growth spurt for the last 30 years both in internal production and also in importing infrastructure. Solar, Wind, Hydro. All those sources are political and not made by the IPCC, so be careful there.
It’s okay to think they’re not doing enough, but to pretend that the EU (which is very dependent on their polluter friend the USA) is somehow beating them at this despite their very minor improvements over the past 20 years is just disingenuous. If you remember energy production 20 years ago you’ll notice that it has barely changed in capitalist countries, while anti-capitalist countries really care about it. This comes from the intuitive fact that the power serves the common proletarian, who are the most affected by climate change, rather than the stockholders.
This was actually the point of the discussion, and I’m happy you finally addressed it so I could rectify it. Now reply to me by ignoring all the listed sources, while moving the discussion to other nonsense abstract notions of bacteria and ancient civilisation, like you seem to enjoy doing.
It's not a full solution, but I'd love to see more use of compostable single-use plastics coupled with municipal biochar facilities.
It's an excellent cycle that harnesses capitalism and materialism. People buy single use plastics, then throw them away. Municipal garbage (a utility company paid for by ratepayers), picks it up, and brings it to a biochar facility. The facility pyrolizes it, making syngas (which they burn for energy which is then purchased by consumers) and biochar, which is sold as a soil amendment and happens to be carbon-negative. Excess biochar can be buried.
It's a typical capitalist create-consume economy except it's carbon-negative (when paired with decarbonized transportation like electric trains and delivery vans, and hydrogen powered garbage trucks). The more you consume, the more carbon you actually suck out of the air.
There's a few proposed loops like this which instead of fighting consumerism actually harness it to make carbon negative actions. Another one that I'm very interested in is making HVAC filters that also passively absorb carbon from the atmosphere. With electric heat pumps we already have an HVAC technology that is minimally emitting. Pair that with carbon negative filters and you're golden.
Or concrete using injected co2. It's a real thing that exists, it just doesn't have price parity with traditional carbon-intensive concrete. Imagine if just by building a building you could be carbon negative.
Again, it's not a total solution but I wish I could see more use cases like this instead of the "consume less" narrative. People are not going to consume less, that's not how people work. The only way to get people to consume less is by raising prices (which is a necessary part of the solution of course).
These companies will not change unless they are forced to do so and our government isn’t going to do shit since most of congress is in the pocket of big oil. So what are our other options?
Everyone likes to blame individuals for not using renewables or buying an electric car, when it reality their options were limited in the first place by big oil. Most people can barely afford to put food on the table and green or renewable products are usually significantly more expensive and not really an option. Besides that, IIRC ordinary citizens only account for roughly 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. So the onus lies on big oil to make changes and offer affordable renewable options instead of the same gas guzzling/polluting bullshit we’ve been offered up to this point. But like I said, they won’t do something like that unless they are forced to do so, they will always pursue profit over people, unless those people get in their faces and force them to pursue other options.
Their unwillingness to act on climate change is a major (if not the biggest) reason we need representation. The Democrats hand power back to Republicans who undo this session’s climate action.
Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.
I understand and support the sentiment: something needs to change. I just don’t think that re-framing electoral politics will work unless it’s backed by a mass movement of organised workers. If that happens, the question becomes, why bother with the middlemen? They can legislate for themselves without having to beg the ruling class for mild compromises.
Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.
That’s kinda what I was driving it. How many elections would it take to abolish FPTP? We’d have to wait for that and only then could we think about voting in politicians who might do something and the system would still be dominated by capital. That makes a three-step process out of a two-step process.
Seems like a request to wait for an indefinite number of election cycles—the same request of those who say to vote for this or that faction of the capitalist party and one day, just maybe, conditions will be just right for one of those parties to effect any change. Too many African, Latin American, and Asian homes and lives would be destroyed while they wait patiently for the US to get its act together.
It would take too long to work unless you know of a massive campaign across the western world to implement FPTP. If it doesn’t exist already, it must be built within the next year or so or the west will be locked into another four-ish years of no progress. And that’s just for a shot at electing politicians who might vote to abolish FPTP. Before they even come within hearing distance of, never mind face-to-face with, the contradictions of imperialism.
Currently, almost all I see in the west is how to do business as usual but in green. That means denying progress to the subjugated masses so that USians can maintain their standard of living. Oppressed people shouldn’t have to wait for the US to figure out how to tactically solve the world’s ills through an electoral technicality. Round and round we’d go with electoralism.
At this point, there is one, single option: revolution. Anything else will take too long. Luckily for humanity, whatever the US thinks or wants is largely irrelevant. The world is revolving anyway. The only question for the world is what form the revolution takes. And the additional question for USians is whether they want to be part of the change or to ruin everything out of spite and self-interest.
While I agree with revolution, I don’t think pursuing that is at odds with voting a certain way once a year. There’s already a movement to eliminate FPTP in the USA and it has been making real progress. This additional step is necessary (within the framework of voting) for the other two steps to work - the second step keeps getting undone.
Personally I’ve been pushing for this since the 2000 presidential election. It has indeed been painfully slow… But it does seem to be getting somewhere. Not to imply we shouldn’t be organizing outside of elections, too.
I have to admit, I did not expect this response. I’m struggling to see how an anti-capitalist argument in favour of socialist revolution is right wing.
A possibility? It’s happening as we speak. Time will tell.
It's a spoiler, a red herring. "Don't bother doing the thing that could actually threaten our power. Instead, focus on this other thing that has no shot of happening."
And in your view, the thing that threatens their power is voting Dem? Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood. If not: (i) how does this ‘solution’ help people who aren’t in the US and (ii) the Dems are in power and have been in power recently before this, and recently before that, and they achieved… what? They brought as much horror to the world as the GOP.
They brought as much horror to the world as the GOP.
This is such a ridiculously wrong statement that if I hadn't already been talking with you and could see you're not an idiot, I'd assume you're too stupid to reason with and just start calling you names. How could you possibly come to that conclusion?
how does this ‘solution’ help people who aren’t in the US
Depends on the country, but it's generally applicable to most places. A revolution is not happening. Change within the system. And for some places, having Dems in charge in the US allows the US to pressure those countries to change in better ways.
Unfortunately they don’t care. They know what they’re doing,
This discussion (and name calling) isn’t for you. It’s for the audience.
And yet they keep doing it, and defending it.
And it’s not just this thread: read their comment history, and it’s littered with name calling and personal attacks. I report their really egregious stuff but it’s tedious reporting every single comment that has personal attacks.
I think you might be right. I let it slide in other comments as I put it down to the ordinary liberal world-outlook. But there’s only so long I’ll put up with schoolyard name-calling. I’ve got better things to do.
I think Lemmy needs a little bit of work on how blocking a user works. It gets confusing seeing new comments come through and not being able to see what they’re replying to. You also have no option to report a comment if you can’t see it. Even if you click the “show context” button, knowing that you’re about to force a blocked user’s comment to show, it just refuses. You have to open in an incognito tab and click show context. Basically, I want the ability to not see their comments in general, and not see them on the “new comments” feed, but if I explicitly ask to see their comments, let me do that.
I have blocked a large number of users who have consistently added nothing to conversation, or who routinely resort to personal attacks.
I am truly frustrated and disappointed that so many people:
feel it acceptable to personally attack another commenter
accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being a paid shill, or a troll
use “shut down” words, with the intent to either entirely discredit the person they’re responding to, or end the conversation where it is
literally copy-and-paste the same reply all over a thread or targeting a person[^1]
make bold claims with no sources, and when you reply correcting them and provide sources of your own, they downvote and don’t reply
engage in conspiracy thinking and go on imaginative expeditions, where connection to reality is secondary to consistency with their beliefs
I know it’s naive to think people will be able to always get along. And I guess it is naive to assume that people actually want to learn, and try to help others learn. But that’s what I want. I’d much rather converse with someone who shares none of my values or beliefs as long as they’re level-headed, not resorting to trickery or fallacious reasoning, are willing to source their statements, and respect me in dialogue.
[^1]: I saw one yesterday where the person copy-and-pasted something like “Russia started the war” about 10 times across a thread, several times replying to the same person, sometimes other people. Every time, it wasn’t actually directly relevant to the comment they replied to. It’s just an attempt to brute-force shut someone down.
Yeah I had them blocked for a bit over a day, but they’re so prolific that I keep seeing other comments responding to theirs (without the ability to see theirs) which confuses me even more while reading my feed.
Ah. I'm from kbin, so I can't view the lemmy.ml homepage (to my knowledge) unless I navigate outside my fediverse account. The linked post seems to be down right now, but I'll view it when I get a chance.
I’m from kbin, so I can’t view the lemmy.ml homepage (to my knowledge) unless I navigate outside my fediverse account.
You can view it, by pointing your browser to lemmy.ml. This community is hosted on lemmy.ml, and as such, the instance rules apply in addition to the community rules. Just like on the rest of the fediverse.
The post is not “down”, whatever that means; it pulls up fine for me. Either way, here is an archived version.
You can view it, by pointing your browser to lemmy.ml.
Yeah, that's outside of my federation account. For example, right now I'm viewing this post with the url kbin.social/m/[email protected]. But I don't think there's any mechanism to look at the page kbin.social/lemmy.ml or something. Or at least I'm not aware of it.
Anyway, the page is back up, and I read it.
I understand the intent of the rule, but I've seen communities who require "only respectful discourse" get swamped by sealions and bad-faith "just asking questions" types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea, especially when it's outright propaganda. But, I'm not a server admin, so I'll try to be more respectful of that rule in the future.
I am so confused at your comments here. It’s a webpage. You can point your browser to (or click the link:) lemmy.ml. You can do it on your computer, on your phone, on your refrigerator. It’s a website. Just like youtube.com is a website. I don’t know why you’re even mentioning kbin here, it would be like saying you can’t view facebook because you’re logged in to kbin.
I understand the intent of the rule, but I’ve seen communities who require “only respectful discourse” get swamped by sealions and bad-faith “just asking questions” types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea
The presence of name calling and insults is always a problem. The absence of name calling and insults does not guarantee there is no problem. Moderation is still necessary even with “only disrespectful discourse” rules; any effective moderation needs to know how to moderate as well: moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren’t simply name calling.
Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation. You should attack an idea and not the person. There are already other rules in place to help address when the idea itself is harmful: there is a rule against bigotry, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and the like; there is a rule about knowingly spreading false information. I would also stipulate (and this is personal speculation but I feel it to be an accurate view): most people who are “spreading propaganda” are not doing it with the knowledge that what they’re saying is propaganda and with the intent to spread propaganda; most probably believe what they say to be true for various reasons including their media exposure, the political climate in their interpersonal interactions and their community and country, their parental influence on their beliefs, etc. If you look at it from that point of view, what good is insulting someone who isn’t actually acting with malice? They’re going to be less likely to reevaluate their beliefs and look at what you’re saying objectively if you’re spewing emotionally charged personally attacks at them, even if you are mixing in valid logic and evidence. And you’re hopefully not here purely to argue and throw insult; hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn. If that’s even part of what’s driving your participation, wouldn’t you want to do so in a manner that’s more productive to everyone involved? So, in my opinion: if they’re not acting with malice, insulting them does nothing good; if they are active with malice, report them and if there’s proper moderation it’ll be removed.
I am so confused at your comments here. It’s a webpage.
It means there's no link to it from the [email protected] community that I'm viewing. I would have to proactively navigate to a new website to check the rules, and why would the instance have different rules than the community? I wouldn't naturally in the course of logging into my kbin account, opening this thread, and commenting on it, see those rules or a link to them anywhere.
moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren’t simply name calling.
This is a nearly impossible ask, because that type of content is tailored specifically for plausible deniability. There's a ready-made "mods are overreaching/censuring" argument if they get banned or silenced. Community censure is the only way to stop these types.
Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation.
I disagree. Attacking an idea requires a lot of effort; indeed, that's why sealioning and JAQing off is a type of trolling at all. It's asymmetric warfare, designed to wear a person down who's trying to attack an idea.
Conversely, responding to a bad faith argument with "that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it" is a no-win position for a concern troll. They either waste time getting dragged into the mud with you trading insults, which doesn't convince anyone of the thing they're pushing. Or they leave and they don't get the chance to push the thing in the first place.
what good is insulting someone who isn’t actually acting with malice?
It's a quarantine. How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It's quite rare. The whole idea is that forums are a debate stage, and the 85% of forum users who just lurk are the audience. You're not trying to convince your opponent; you're trying to convince the audience.
hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn.
Sometimes, yes. But we can't ignore that the internet is an ideological battleground. For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don't want to make that mistake again.
And this is just a personal thing, but I'll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It's easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.
And this is just a personal thing, but I’ll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It’s easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.
So you’re here to play a game. To play whack-a-mole. I find that to be a disturbing approach to interacting with humans. I know I’m idealistic, but for anyone who (like me) is attempting to have real human-to-human conversation, someone coming in with the intent to just shout “fallacy!”, “propaganda!”, “wrong!” and play a game is extremely offensive.
For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don’t want to make that mistake again.
You have contradicted yourself here with another of your comments. In another comment you said
How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It’s quite rare.
And now you’re saying you have a duty to convince others to change their mind by arguing with them on the internet. So is honest argumentation effective or isn’t it?
No, I think you misunderstand. If I'm arguing with you, my intent is (usually) not to convince you, personally. This is usually because I pick arguments with people I suspect are speaking in bad faith, or who are heavily emotionally invested in an idea. My intent is to convince lurkers.
You might also notice that as I get further down an argument thread, I tend to engage more directly with the person I'm arguing with. That's because there's less audience down here, and we're actually having at least a little bit of a productive conversation.
So is honest argumentation effective or isn’t it?
It can be effective but it is rarely efficient. In the time it takes you to present a detailed, sourced, and well-reasoned argument, and convince a single person who strongly felt the opposite way, twenty other people who have no strong feelings either way have been convinced by a well-timed quip or insult. And that's if you could convince the other person at all.
I read the page that 133arc585 linked. I can't actually see the lemmy.ml homepage unless I log out of my fediverse account, I believe.
I understand the intent of the rule, but I've seen communities who require "only respectful discourse" get swamped by sealions and bad-faith "just asking questions" types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea, especially when it's outright propaganda. But, I'm not a server admin, so I'll try to be more respectful of that rule in the future.
You called me an idiot after a few hours of us talking in what was apparently good faith. This isn’t tone policing because it’s not the way that you’re formulating your argument that I’m objecting to, rather, it’s the fact that you’re mixing arguments with name-calling. There’s very little point in us continuing to engage as everything I say that doesn’t confirm your worldview is more evidence that I’m a shill. Where do we go from there? You’re clearly not interested in a discussion.
Democratic strongholds are making massive gains on climate change. Look at California. That's what happens when we get a democratic supermajority.
The federal government has had a Democratic supermajority exactly once in the past few decades. For a few months. And they used it to get us the Affordable Care Act.
Biden got the IRA done without a supermajority, but he's a brilliant politician.
You fuckers keep claiming democrats are ineffective or colluding or something but you haven't actually given dems a chance to fix anything yet.
Give us a democratic supermajority for 8 years and you'll be amazed at what gets accomplished.
If someone has decided voting isn't worth it to the point that they're trying to convince others not to vote, they're generally too stupid and emotionally invested to change their mind. Or they're a shill.
This discussion (and name calling) isn't for you. It's for the audience. People feeling hopeless and powerless who might buy into the "don't vote" bullshit. Voting matters.
Voting 3rd party is effectively the same thing as not voting. I mentally tend to consider those as the same thing. But yes I should have clarified that.
How would you respond to GP’s point that most Democrats are corrupt too? Nobody here is arguing that they’re as bad as Republicans. But just electing them with no regard to their policy positions will produce right wing Democrats who will ultimately hold the same positions as Republicans, and then they’ll split into two FPTP-supporting parties like the Democratic-Republican party did. We will have won a name and nothing more.
Nobody here is arguing that they’re as bad as Republicans.
You may not be, but plenty of people do make this argument, at which point I start calling them irredeemably stupid.
But just electing them with no regard to their policy positions
Every Democrat is better than every Republican, period. Given the choice between the two, it's an obvious choice.
The time to care about policy positions is in the primaries, in local elections in safe Democrat districts, and in internal democratic party elections (which you may not even know happen, but I attend all of them and it's an excellent way to meet face to face with the people who in 10 years will be running your state).
And then, yes, when you get a place that's safely Democratic, you have the democrats split into a more left and a more right wing. But the new right wing of the democrats is the old left wing.
Why are you arguing with (and name calling) people who aren’t even here?
That’s not a given.
Internal elections that most working class people can’t attend is one of our problems; they’re taking advantage of voter fatigue.
What you’re describing already happened. Every Democratic-Republican was better than every Whig. And then the Democrats were bribed further and further right. If we don’t demand that they make themselves easy to replace, then it will happen again.
Every Democrat is better than every Republican, period. Given the choice between the two, it's an obvious choice.
How is this not a given? With the modern GOP, how could you ever trust anyone who allies themselves with that party? Even if they're personally a saint, they're still allied to the GOP.
Internal elections that most working class people can’t attend is one of our problems; they’re taking advantage of voter fatigue.
Guess which states have implemented vote-by-mail? Democratic strongholds.
How would you respond to GP’s point that most Democrats are corrupt too?
Sorry, skipped this. I would say a) it's an order of magnitude less than Republicans, and b) democratic voters are more willing to hold their candidates to task.
If current green companies can’t make affordable options, why in God’s earth would you think it would be cheaper if conventional energy companies join the mix?
Your entire statement is conflicting. Angry about high costs being unaffordable then suggesting oil companies to not produce low cost energy that keeps prices down while acknowledging the high cost of green energy.
Oh, I’m not suggesting not voting. Just point out that the left wing vote in the US is a decrepit old Catholic who’s issued a huge amount of oil drilling permits and picked a cop for his vp position.
Wait! Some of you really believed in and trusted your politician’s and your corporation’s PR ad campaigns? LOL I remember few years ago, when everybody on Reddit posted pictures of themselves cleaning beaches and streets and stuff, all proud of how they made some kind of difference. KEKW
Well… I hate to break it to you, but it seems we’re left without any alternative. I alone can’t do shit about it. Groups of people have tried, and we do see the results. In last few years I’ve seen people making fun of the one Swedish girl that also tried… I’m not saying we should give up, but I think our politicians and corporations and governments are rather preparing for a war (you need a lot o oil for it), and I see far more people and celebrities on Internet and the news cheering for this war then fighting for their own future. Idk I’m no expert…
There is an alternative. And it’s proving to be effective. But you’re not allowed to know about it. And if you do know, you’re not allowed to think about it objectively. The evidence will be framed in such a way that makes you think that tackling climate change and corporate power is the most dangerous thing on earth: doi.org/10.1017/9781009152655
Haha. It does look dodgy. I used it for transparency, though, as doi links tend to be trusted. If you have a look at almost any recent academic article, it’ll have one. Look up doi’s before clicking that link if you like. Academic publishers use them to make sure that links to research always work. From doi.org:
A DOI is a digital identifier of an object, any object — physical, digital, or abstract. DOIs solve a common problem: keeping track of things. Things can be matter, material, content, or activities. A DOI is a unique number made up of a prefix and a suffix separated by a forward slash. This is an example of one: 10.1000/182. It is resolvable using our proxy server by displaying it as a link: doi.org/10.1000/182.
Designed to be used by humans as well as machines, DOIs identify objects persistently. They allow things to be uniquely identified and accessed reliably. You know what you have, where it is, and others can track it too.
The link I posted, doi.org/10.1017/9781009152655, takes you to Cambridge University Press website for an academic book called, Clean Air at What Cost? The Rise of Blunt Force Regulation in China by Denise Sienli van der Kamp. A few chapters are accessible. Otherwise, you’ll have to search online for a full PDF. Here’s a more usual form of link to the introduction: cambridge.org/…/2A72A1AACE376312BDD4B005439AAC41.
From the summary of the introduction (emphasis added):
In the past decade, the Chinese government has resorted to forcibly shuttering entire industries or industrial areas to clean up the air. These “blunt force” measures are often taken as a sign of authoritarian efficiency; the state uses its coercive powers to swiftly eliminate polluting industries and then silence social dissent. This chapter introduces an alternate perspective: that blunt force regulation is a sign of ineffective bureaucratic control. When institutions are too weak to hold bureaucrats accountable, central leaders increase oversight by drastically reducing the number of steps and resources required to produce a regulatory outcome – resulting in blunt force measures. Through an overview of the causes and consequences of China’s blunt force pollution regulation, this chapter challenges the tenets of authoritarian environmentalism, forcing us to rethink what it means to be a “high-capacity” state.
The book is rather clever, as you can see from this excerpt. It reframes the narrative to support the argument that although China has been successful in ‘swiftly eliminating[ing] polluting industries’, it did not do so efficiently and it had to ‘silence social dissent’. Hard to imagine how someone can present the evidence that China’s methods worked in the same breath as trying to convince you that such success means that it failed. That’s western academics for you. Just wait till you look at chapter 2, which explains that if the author is right, there are:
two underlying logics [to] regulatory enforcement, namely, “rules-based” regulation (which prioritizes effectiveness) and “risk-based” regulation (which prioritizes efficiency). … [But] blunt force regulation fits into neither category, offering neither efficient nor effective regulation in the long-term.’
As if China, with one of the most advanced technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, is going to instal a hodgepodge, disconnected network of tiny, polluting, inefficient coal power stations because it chose the wrong (effective-but-ineffective) regulatory model.
Don’t get me wrong. China could very probably improve its efficiency re: meeting environmental goals. Perhaps it could take seriously some of the analysis in this book when doing so; some if it is very good. But although the author argues for readers to disbelieve the evidence presented in the same book, it outlines an effective alternative to the capitalist mock sigh of despair. The question is, should society listen to the social dissent or do what’s best for life on earth?
I need to read up more on dois, since I don't understand why not just use a url, they're already unique.
The sketchiness actually came from that as well as the "you're not allowed to talk about it" comment which to me screams crypto scam or cult or both.
Here's my issue with your general argument
As if China, with one of the most advanced technologically advanced infrastructures in the world,
You seem to be taking it a given that what China is doing is more or less correct, and then deducing how you should interpret the world from that. Of course China wouldn't do anything stupid, at best they might just need minor improvements to the process.
This book criticizing China isn't right, it's just Western indoctrination.
To me that makes it likely that you're someone who's drank the kool aid, and you're emotionally invested in defending China, which makes a fruitful conversation with you unlikely.
It’s because websites go down. If a journal website goes down, for example, the doi can be redirected so that people searching old links can still find the article.
The book argues that China’s ‘blunt force regulation’ will not work in the long term, suggesting that China may have clean air today but that its air will become dirty again because its regulatory model is defective. I’m saying that is a weak argument as it presupposes that the factories and inefficient (greenhouse gas-wise) infrastructure, etc, that were shut down will be re-used, which is baffling. Those factories are gone. And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, it is highly unlikely that anyone would re-install the technologically backward infrastructure. It wouldn’t be very competitive in the world market, would it?
China will face myriad problems in the future. Dirty air from inefficient processing and usage of fossil fuels is unlikely to be one of them. If that’s right, and if I’ve interpreted the author’s argument right, then the thesis fails for being reduced to an absurdity. That’s not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s some great analysis in the book. The evidence and analysis just do not lead to the author’s conclusion unless one accepts two essential premises: the primacy of private property and the basic principles of liberalism.
I’m emotionally invested in evidence and conclusions that can be drawn on its basis. You say I’ve drunk the Kool Aid while dismissing the maturity of 80+ million members of the CPC and millions more supporters in the rest of the population.
When I said, you’re not allowed to talk about it, this is exactly what I was referencing. Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision. As if there’s only one permissible narrative—which happens to be mainstream only in the west. Such that academics will write a book detailing the successes of Chinese environmental policy and conclude that it’s failed because one day it might fail. Again, there is very likely room to improve efficiency and there is some good analysis in the book. Insisting on nuance does not a cult make.
Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the "good faith" arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn't so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda. After having a few conversations with these types, you learn to spot red flags (no pun intended)
And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one. And very suspicious. Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they're not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters. Makes em easier to spot. The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
My concern with you is that you're not trying to take an idea that happens to be Chinese and promote it towards the rest of the world. We could talk about the merits of that. It's that you're taking a Chinese system and trying to promote it towards the rest of the world. With all the baggage that comes with it.
You understand the difference? My worry is that your primary concern is not the idea, but rather the fact that it came from China.
But let's discuss the idea itself. You're basically saying that unilaterally shutting down processes is a good approach to fix the climate. How would you port that concept to countries which are not primarily manufacturing-based, like the US and Western Europe?
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the “good faith” arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn’t so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda.
The ratio of truly state-funded actors to genuine human participation is nowhere near what you’re implying. If you think it is as bad as you say, you should be able to prove that comment. Just because someone holds different opinions than you doesn’t mean they’re being paid to do so (if only that were true!).
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one.
Mentioning China where it truly is irrelevant is weird; mentioning China when it is relevant, but just because you don’t think it is, isn’t weird. If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all; that’s like saying praise for the the #1 gold medal olympian is superlative–it’s not, they’re literally at the top.
Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they’re not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters.
You have a very active imagination. This is a satement about two different countries, so you have twice as much opportunity to find evidence that (at least one side of) what you’re saying is true. Can you provide evidence that this isn’t just your imagination?
The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
Again, you present this as if it’s obviously true. It’s not.
If you assume everyone is operating in bad faith and is a paid actor, why participate at all? You’re not saving the world by fighting against an imagined state-funded actor foe. You’re feeding on (imagined) outrage.
If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all
I'm not going to bother to get a ranking of countries by "technologically advanced infrastructure" (see above point about sealioning). But the point is it doesn't matter. The point could be made by saying "since China has a technologically advanced infrastructure" or, even more to the point, "since China has an interest in actively guiding its infrastructure". No one would argue that China is a 3rd world country. But no. It's not a technologically advanced infrastructure. It's "one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world". That's superlative relative to the topic at hand, and that's why it's a red flag. The verbiage is familiar.
But also, the context. If someone said "Germany has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world", well, we could debate that, but I wouldn't suspect any bad faith. Because there hasn't been a history of state-motivated actors pushing that agenda on the internet on behalf of Germany.
No, we haven’t. For someone so hellbent on pretending they’re calling out bad-faith arguments, you’re falling in to one now: asking for sources is not always sealioning. If someone is spewing bold claims, sometimes in sequence in an effort to combine them to come to conclusions that are questionable by nature of not having a grounding in fact, without providing evidence, is that not a problem? Seemingly, you’re saying the problem only comes about from someone who responds and asks for a source. Making bold claims should require you to provide evidence; asking for evidence of bold claims is not the problem.
At this point, I really shouldn’t bother talking to you anymore. You’ve made it very clear you are not actually here in good faith (your version of good faith is playing games, not to have real discussion). I’m offended by your approach, and haven’t been driven to meaningful thought by your comments.
True, but it's not very relevant to the discussion here. I'm explaining things I've personally seen on the internet, not trying to convince you of the same. You're asking for evidence for something that's several layers of abstraction from what we've been discussing. I can understand your desire for evidence of the bold claims I've made, but that's a lot of effort on my part, especially for this topic where state-level actors have an interest in covering up the pure statistical facts.
I actually don't think you have any ill intent in asking, just curiosity and healthy skepticism. It's a question of effort.
Thread is about climate change
Redtea suggests we should look at alternate approaches than the typical capitalist
I question
Redtea cites a book and makes a pro-China statement as part of his thesis
I find his motives suspicious due to the statement
You question my suspicion
I explain my experience
You ask for evidence
We're several layers deep into this right now. I could come back to it later when I have more energy and am motivated and I could spend some time finding you stuff, but it's a big ask for me to spend like an hour looking up and compiling stuff for you to give you a snapshot of what I've seen on the internet over the past 5-10 years.
The only thing big corporations care about is next quarter’s profits. The world can quite literally burn next year if they get their big profits this quarter.
They believe that they won’t be effected, or at least effected last and the least. These people are parasites on society and need to be treated as such.
You see capitalism is lime a virus. It grows, takes over its host (us) and causes painful symptoms. And naturally if the disease is not treated we will die. Right now the world is akin to having a bad flu. The world is even getting hotter to try to kill us.
I have low expectation but damn…didn’t think that they’d be that low.
We all are trying to do our parts you know, I used to like cars when I was in HS, now I don’t even consider having one. I’ll stick to public transport and will get an electric last mile transport.
These people sucks ass. They have the monetary power to make real change but decided to double down. Nowadays investments in renewables have good returns and will be viable for the next couple decades, but they care too much for their previously invested monies and want to milk the people to the last drop.
Man, you are so right. The weirdest part is, that your behavior isn’t even socially very accepted.
I, too, love engines. I admire the technology and how genius they are put together. My dream is to own a cruiser motorbike and go drive through the countryside. I don’t think this will happen, as I would hate myself to burn fuel for pleasure.
I own a very old, tiny scooter, that I only use to carry heavy stuff. I used to carry on my shoulders, but mom in law felt sorry for me and gave me her oldest, broken, rusty scooter, that nobody used for months, because she bought a new one again. I repaired it. My wife gets upset, when I don’t drive her around. For example to the market 500 meters down the road to buy a can of soda or so. I only use it for hard work.
People surrounding me think I don’t like progress. No, man, I would love to have a more convenient life! Driving to me is fun, I enjoy it! I just can’t stand myself to do something bad to environment for my pleasure, so I try not to. And people think I’m weird.
I know people like you and me don’t even make a difference. Whatever amount we save and not emit in our whole lifetime - some ignorant wealthy will blow out within 5 minutes.
We should stop begging for change and act now. Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.
We cannot stop climate change now, but we can try to de-accelerate by fighting against big oil, corrupt politics, and billionaire newspapers supporting them.
Too many people believe they can just continue living like they were 30 years ago - if big oil would stop producing stuff and plastics, gas and airplane fuels would not be available anymore then people would riot
Even threatening to increase prices to a level that would make sense to limit the use to absolutely necessary levels would piss off too many people to be a viable option because everyone just wants to believe that it’s just for “the others” to change but not for themselves.
This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.
And don't @ me about "100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions". Who's buying those corporations' goods? Who's refusing to vote for politicians that'll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who's spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that'll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don't mean "direct action" (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that'll have a real impact on people's real lives.
And don't @ me about "100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions". Who's buying those corporations' goods?
People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the "you're the ones buying the goods" people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.
It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.
In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don’t get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.
In the US, 3rd parties effectively don't exist and you're throwing away your vote.
Vote blue. Remember that Joe Manchin of all people epically played the GOP to get us the IRA. Even corpo shills can advance our cause. Throwaway votes cannot.
Politicians don’t care because the general population doesn’t care. Guarantee if it was on the top of the list of peoples concerns even the corporate shills of the main parties would give it more than just lip service. but climate change didn’t even crack the top 10 voter issue concerns in 2022 midterms (it was 14th)
You can do personal responsibility alone all you want. Nobody will join you. Government regulation affects everyone.
Selling people on personal responsibility is what the oil companies want, because they know it doesn’t work. It gives you the chance to be high and mighty, while nobody else reduces their consumption, so their profits stay the same.
Definitely consume less if you can, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that individual actions in reducing personal consumption achieve anything. Go out there and vote for politicians who propose better climate policies, maybe assassinate some oil, gas and coal company execs, etc.
Not to mention that we could organise for every one of the seven or eight billion people on the planet to take ‘personal responsibility’ and it would still leave 70%+ of emissions untouched. Not even close to where we need to be.
If we COULD organise every single person to consume as little as possible (in terms of goods, fuel, electricity and services), that would mean that all those polluting companies have nobody left to produce stuff for. The 70% number doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s still people who buy all the shit. It’s just impossible to get enough people to stop buying stuff without a carbon tax and other rules that increase the cost of pollution.
If we COULD organise every single person to consume as little as possible (in terms of goods, fuel, electricity and services), that would mean that all those polluting companies have nobody left to produce stuff for. The 70% number doesn’t exist in a vacuum…
Good point. They would require an alternative supplier for the means of subsistence, however, which marks the limits of focussing on the consumer as opposed to the producer.
It’s just impossible to get enough people to stop buying stuff without a carbon tax and other rules that increase the cost of pollution.
That’s the contradiction: you won’t get the carbon tax until the masses organise to put pressure on legislators. Politicians aren’t held back by a lack of public support (okay there are a few who would take action)—legislatures don’t want to implement any carbon controls. They aren’t guided by morality or abstract rationality.
First, this means, that one day they will appear to act spontaneously, morally, but this will be to avoid leaving stranded assets.
Second, they take actions that are logical in the context of class struggle. By this, I mean, there’s a way of imposing a carbon tax without increasing prices: by taxing the energy companies. That won’t happen in a bourgeois democracy without massive public pressure, because the politicians and energy execs tend to be members of the same class.
Did you just completely not read the context of the conversation that prompted my comment? At all? You seriously just pulled my comment out of context, made a straw man out of it, and started arguing. What the actual tittyfucking Christ.
I did, you’re just wrong. Personal responsibility stops working at large scales and can not, MUST not be depended upon. The more people you need to be responsible, the smaller the percentage that will be.
That’s why we have laws and need to have better laws regarding pollution and consumption.
DreamerOfImprobableDreams started it with the "don't @ me about 100 corporations". At which point I called him out by saying the exact same shit you're saying to me now. That's how I know you didn't read the context.
Embarrassed yet?
When I brought up that "personal responsibility" is a propaganda point from corpos, he clarified that he was talking in the context of "policy driven changes that force companies to decarbonize will have a negative effect on people's lives", ie gas prices will go up, oil riggers will lose their jobs, etc. Market friction. It will suck a little bit.
As hh93 said, and I agreed to,
No - the ones calling them out are just telling them to be prepared to change their lifestyle after those measurements are taken because it sure as hell won’t go on how it has all the time if those companies just stop.
That's "personal responsibility" in the context we were all talking about.
So clearly you didn't read a damn thing from the comment thread prior to my comment, and then you DOUBLED DOWN on refusing to read and lied about reading.
Sorry, I'm so used to hanging out in left-of-center places I make the mistake of assuming everyone understands how BS the whole "personal responsibilty" shtick is and is onboard with strict regulations to fight climate change. So I tend not to explicitly call it out in my posts, assuming it goes unsaid. Which might be a bad assumption to make in more centrist / non-explicitly-liberal spaces.
It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.
I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.
Our society is 100% car centered. My kids’ schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it’s over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I’m happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn’t feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can’t work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.
Maybe don’t move somewhere that your job and kids school is hundreds of miles away? My child’s school is down the street, and I can take the subway to work in about 15min. This was a specific choice my wife and I made when we chose to live here.
Hundreds of miles? I think you misread. They’re several miles away.
Also it’s a lot easier said than done to just up and move somewhere more convenient. I don’t have that luxury, and telling me to do so will get you a big fat “go fuck yourself” from me for being so insufferable about it.
Now move along and go bug someone else with your luxury conveniences.
Your reality is the one that’s grounded in reality.
You can’t win, either way. When you move for work or whatever and then say you wish you could see your family and old friends more, you get the same shitty response: well, you didn’t have to choose to move away. Or if you complain that your landlord keeps putting up the rent, you get told, ‘why don’t you just buy’, as if the bank doesn’t just put up the mortgage if it’s even an option. It’s almost like capitalism loves liberal individualism, where every societal fault can be blamed on the individual for not taking better choices.
It’s possible for billions today right now including millions in America. So maybe you should expand your understanding of what is possible instead of being a reactionary fighting change.
Billions of people in the world live without cars. The possibilities of this don’t need to be explained since they are actively occurring across the world. Within America there are ~10% of household that do not have a car. usa.streetsblog.org/…/u-s-cities-have-more-car-fr…This is a good thing btw, and it should fully demonstrate that such a life is absolutlely possible, and could be improved and expanded.
So you're saying that in areas which allow for people to live without cars, people live without cars, and this is why people who live in areas that DON'T allow for people to live without cars, should also live without cars? What?
If the environment is designed solely for cars, you can't just ditch your car. And unless you're wealthy you can't just up and move.
I’m saying if you voluntarilly move to a place that requires a car, your opinion is made clear: you don’t give a shit about the future and your selfishness is apparent.
Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out.
Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don’t want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.
And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it’s the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.
Not immediately but they’ll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.
And that’ll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.
It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn’t work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that’s why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.
We can’t even get people to individually choose to wear a mask or stand a little bit away from each other when their immediate health depends on it. Nevermind asking people to… to do what? It’s not like there’s a choice. That’s what the monopoly phase of capitalism means.
How can I choose not to use fossil fuels to get around? The buses don’t go where I’m going or when I need to go. How can I choose to avoid the food without the plastic packaging? Almost all the food except for some niche items is packed in plastic. I don’t even get the choice by picking fresh produce because it got to the store wrapped in plastic. How can I choose to use fewer resources? My devices, white goods, furniture, clothes, etc, are all built intentionally not to last – and if they do last, they get ‘updated’ to landfill mode.
I’m agreeing with you, to be clear. I do wonder how regulation can help, considering politicians don’t regulate unless they’re forced to. Partly because they are or they represent the bourgeoisie and wouldn’t get anywhere near power if they wanted to do things differently. Political pressure can be built but the voices in some of the problematic comments in this thread are quite mainstream.
I suppose what I’m saying, and I’m not necessarily looking for an answer, is: if we get to the stage where the public consciousness and it’s organisation are powerful enough to make politicians take climate action seriously, why would we leave it to those politicians to implement and why would we retain a system based on infinite growth? Why would we get to the point where we collectively decide to make the world a better place and then say, you know what, you can keep doing all the other extractivism, oppression, war, slum landlording, racist border controls, etc, just make sure you use recyclable packaging and transport it in electric vehicles?
Exactly. The world around us has been engineered so that we’d all consume more. Either out of necessity, or for convenience. After all the hard work we put in, we feel like deserve convenience, don’t we?
More and better public transit is 100x better for reducing transport carbon emissions than telling people to “just walk to work”. When the options are there, and they’re incentivized, people will use them. But public transit will also have to be way cheaper than driving, because let’s be honest, it’s kinda icky, if you’re used to driving your air conditioned private pod of utter comfort, and you’re being asked to share space with some hobo who couldn’t decide if he wanted to piss or shit himself so he did both.
Agree with that. It’s been difficult since Covid, too, as it’s made it clear how different people’s views are on hygeine and health. I didn’t used to have a car. But I’m not sitting in an unventilated metal tube where nobody wears a mask and every third person coughs or sneezes without covering their face. That was disgusting before Covid. Now it’s potentially life-changing.
They could be built with better ventilation and with more frequent services and more regular cleaning but that would eat into profits. In fact, during Covid, they reduced the number of lines, citing ‘safety’. How it’s safer to have busier carriages in an airborne pandemic, I’ll never know. They never re-introduced the old lines. So the trains and buses have been even more crammed than they were up to 2019. At least the shareholders are happy.
Ooooh the bullshit companies did "because covid" drives me up the wall. Closing early, because covid is scared of the dark. Longer hold times because covid? Bullshit. Forcing everyone to enter and exit through the same door, because that's safer for some reason? Jesus
They didn’t say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don’t even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won’t be living with much at all.
don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?
Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.
Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.
This is it exactly. We have to turn off the f*cking spigot at the source!
There is no amount of science or innovation that’s going to save us. It’s going to take “holy shit we’re all going to die horribly” panic from world leaders to forcefully cut off the source, which is oil and its byproducts.
Short of that, no amount of responsible consumerism can stem this tide.
It’s a regular liberal trick, to insist on looking at the consumer while the producer laughs at us on their yacht. In the meantime, their managers, agents, lawyers, and accountants work tirelessly to make sure that what they offer, in the form they offer it, are the only options.
They’ll buy a stake in public transport and run it to the ground so that people are forced to buy and use cars. They’ll drop the prices in their supermarket so the local grocer with local suppliers can’t afford to stay open. They’ll build obsolescence into every product so you have to keep buying new ones, and the old one is thrown into landfill. They’ll campaign against nuclear energy under the guise of green activism, then complain that wind and solar must be backed by fossil fuels. They’ll buy all the newspapers and news channels, ensuring the only narrative is theirs—dog eat dog and the activist down the road is coming for your way of life. They’ll buy the recording studios and reinforce these messages in film, TV, music: that petite bourgeois living is peak aspiration and that ‘there is no alternative’ as if we lack imagination.
Then the public will continue that good work for them. Condescending all who disagree. Arguing that capitalism isn’t the problem because humans are greedy or any of the other unassailable, facile, and trite logics that we’re forced to hear constantly but which have no grounding in reality.
I agree with you.. It passes people off because their entire life is dependent on fossil fuels. When its been encouraged by society/government for decades and now people have to drive miles to get to the nearest grocery store/point of interest they don't have an alternative that isn't uprooting their whole lives.
If you are going tax gas what it should be taxed, you also need to simultaneously make changes that will help people transition to sustainable alternatives. An amount of people will resist no matter what but you need a carrot to go along with the stick.
Lol that’s the world’s largest prisoner dilemma, never going to happen. People are big children, and you need to treat them as such. You don’t let the child decide whether it’s going to eat candy or real food, you take away the option of candy because they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are good for them in the long run. This is no different, it’s why we have things like regulations and the FDA.
Absolutely correct. I myself don’t have children, don’t have a car, and I don’t eat meat. Just pick any of those 3 and try to deal with the reactions to it. People are big children.
Not to mention the “adults” in this comparison don’t actually care about the child or the candy, they just care about retaining the ability to control your candy and will do anything and everything to keep stockpiling that sweet, sweet money.
Cool metaphor and all, but just want to be super clear. We’re talking about regulating oil, right? And plastics, coal, other fossil fuel derivatives. And no one’s going to come take away my candy. Stay away from my candy. Don’t take it, it’s mine.
You do realize that they are children ruled by other children who shouldn’t get that kind of authority? Do you know what children with power over other children do?
I “kinda” disagree, because we have a lot of alternatives now. Some are more expensive, some need a bit more work, but the alternatives are there and are coming as well. And little changes can do good things, for example not eating Avocados is something everyone can do. If only 50k people stop eating Avocados, that’s one hell of an impact in the rainforest areas. Because those 50k people don’t eat one Avocado per Month, they eat a lot more (generally). A single Avocado Tree can produce 80-100 Kg per year and generally, avocados are somewhere between 500-900 g. So maybe 120-150 Avocados per year, per tree. Then there’s meat - we don’t have to stop eating it, we have to reduce and it would make a HUGE impact, especially considering Beef from Brazil isn’t even that great, but the rainforest get’s destroyed for it.
And so on. It even goes so far, that if people still want to drive their gas guzzlers, they can, but they need synthetic fuels which are expensive but 100% carbon neutral. So the Lifestyle does not need changing necessarily - it just needs some adjustments and especially more conscious consumption - especially in those countries, where capitalism is in “full effect” and where we “rich people” actually make impacts with our buying decisions. (Even if they are extremely small, if you tell friends you are doing things different, they may do as well)
Capitalism is in full effect in every country except about five. All those countries that get shit on by capitalism are as much of what capitalism is as those handful of countries (not the above-mentioned five) that prosper from it. It doesn’t work, can’t exist, without both ends of the scale.
Where I live we get one or more times a week 40°C and over days.
Going from home to work is a 30 minutes drive for me. I drive a 2004 petrol Opel Agila.
The train requires you to be on-point, otherwise is a 50 minutes wait for the next run. Also, from the main train station to work is a 20 minutes added walk. This is not too bad, but the worst part is doing the walk under the heat we have here during the summer. Good thing it ends up actually being cheaper than driving my Agila, counting a subscription is €30 while I fuel €15 each week.
The bus is never on-point, always late, always destroyed, always trashy, always overwhelmingly full, skips runs and its not uncommon for it to stop working while you are on it. And you still need the 20 minutes walk. By the way, its too a paid service.
When I will be able to financially, I want to at least move to a newer electric vehicle or use the train during fall and winter. But at least right now during summer, I just can’t without arriving at work like a bucket of salt water had been thrown at me (as there is little good shade on the way) and we don’t have showers at work.
Other people might not even have the chance to made this decision, as public services can be even harder to use in some other areas.
The fediverse is an interesting place with both right wing and tankie shills as well as "enlightened centrists" (which in the US is mostly right wing apologists with window dressing). All are idiots, or propagandists. I like calling them all out.
I believe in left of center regulated capitalism with a strong social security net, personally. I'm a fan of Clinton, Biden, Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, though I have major disagreements with all of them on some issues. I believe authoritarianism is morally wrong and I believe anarchism is a foolish idea. I'm not as familiar with the specific policy positions of non US politicians but I generally agree with the western European and Scandinavian approaches to government, with the exception of the surveillance state. In a very broad sense my ideal state would take that model, make having an educated population the #1 priority, and inject a healthy level of American "the ultimate power resides with the people, who should have the means to overthrow a corrupt government if necessary".
I think with a hefty dose of appropriate regulation, capitalism can solve the great majority of societal ills in the world.
I think a strong Western military is a necessity and I think the Pax Americana is an excellent thing for the world.
I think taking action within the current democratic system is far more effective than dreaming about some revolution.
I think the way out of our current mess is to VOTE and push candidates further left.
For an example of a position I can respect but ultimately disagree with, the idea that we should ban guns to save lives. It's a reasonable position to take. I just think it's not worth it, but I wouldn't call anyone supporting it an idiot.
I’m all in on all of this. But I’m not very confident that necessary change can be made through our (US) democracy. I’m losing faith in our government almost daily.
You read a comment from a person criticizing the current government for being self motivated and taking bribes under a story about climate change and how we’re all fucked and you thought this was a centrist comment?
Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.
Yeah… that’s how we ended up in this situation. How do you think these giant corporations became so powerful? They “reformed” laws until they could do whatever the hell they please - that’s what “reform” gets you.
It’s really simple… the people with money get to dictate how these “reforms” work - that’s it. It doesn’t matter if you get a Bernie Sanders into a position of power - the “vested interests” will dictate all the little loop holes in the small script that allows for “business as usual” to continue, and that’s if they bother to hide it at all. It’s literally how we ended up in this terrible situation.
I don’t know what kind of “leftists” you have been talking to… the ones I talk to understand this very well. It’s pretty much been the bedrock of anarchist thought for more than a hundred years now.
Stalinists are right-wingers with red flags - there’s nothing leftist about them at all. Trots are barely any better. People forget that leftist ideas are popular - that is why there are so many political racketeers in the world pretending to buy into those ideas while actively distorting the same ideas to suit their political agenda. Even old Adolf did it - but no-one is as guilty as the charlatans that ran the USSR and is currently running the PRC. The USSR was about as “socialist” as the US is “democratic” - ie, their (respective) “socialism” and “democracy” only exists in the minds of propagandists.
Modern-day Stalinists do not have an excuse… the truth is perfectly available to them. They are no different to people who deny the Holocaust or climate change.
Well, I know a little country under genocidal threat from a couple of neighbors (one of which is in NATO) which “the west” is completely fine with. Those neighbors are even getting some green energy investments, simultaneously doing modern-day Nazi propaganda, cause nobody cares about brown people.
So - that little country has an “elite” which not only comes from the most ignorant, must dirty levels of society, but that elite has also robbed it for 30+ years. Its politicians and military people are incompetent, cowardly and immoral, they spend more effort on defending against competition or immunity in their own nation than on defending against genocidal neighbors. And they’ve made the judicial system and the military into their pocket tools.
If one could massacre all that elite, about 10k people, things would possibly change for the better. That little nation does have intelligentsia, it does have educated people, it does have very patriotic and passionate patriotic people still tolerant to dissent (something this community doesn’t have).
Some people would say the solution of massacring this group of people is Stalinist. Though there is no communism involved here, just when any legal means of fighting a virus are neutered, only violence remains.
You quoted Hitler. If you think you have any room to claim who is in favor or equal rights and who isn’t, you need to think again. You promoted a view point by Hitler.
Ya right. When has prices went over 5 dollars a gallon in the US, people there list their minds. God forbid we should drive a bit less or consume less.
This is a consumer problem not big oil. The second biggest company in the world by revenue and by far the largest by profit is Saudi Aramco. And why are they so big and countries like Russia are energy giants? Because we are tax and regulated our oil companies significantly more while increasing our consumption. Instead of buying locally, we are now buying from countries like Russia and Saudia Arabia. Look how that is working out.
Add comment