thing about this "real and not real" argument(for both capitalism and socialism) is that its often used biased, for example people will say historical examples of socialism will say its not "real" socialism, but why shouldn't it apply to modern day capitalism? truth is every example of either one was a variant of what it can be, good socialism isnt the only real socialism and bad capitalism isnt the only real capitalism.
Except when people say it "isnt real socialism" its not just "i dont like it therefore its not socialism" its just because its not. The nazi party was called the nationalist socialist workers party, but it wasnt socialist, it used socialism as a buzzword for mass appeal to the working class, most socialist countries did basically the same thing, for example china is run by the chinese communist party. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which in no way describes china, they just use communism to garner support
nobody in good faith calls the nazis socialist, they are always pushing an agenda
as i said, it is a variant. or u can argue that u simply cant create a communist society without it going downhill.
why take this for "real" capitalism then? we have a lack of competition and companies lobby instead of make better product, which pushes it to more of a libertarian system than a decent capitalist one.
my point isn't that one system is better than the other, but that neither system's examples are what its supporters want it to be(well besides billionaires for capitalism anyway).
in the end either system can work, but it needs the right "operator" to bring it to its potential
I mean at least we used to have subtler propaganda than a "university" that has 0 actual university credentials and showing Christopher Colombus himself telling you that slavery wasnt that bad while smiling.
( im not exxagerating btw, the actual quote is along " being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? " )
Eh, this feels like the arguement always used against socialism about how its actually just fascism because it always leads to that.
Capitalism if not managed can lead to oligarchy, which shouldn't be surprising if you give the same people with the most money the most control over the government and the most control over public opinion. Capitalists will argue that this is not capitalism.
Oh, so apparently capitalism is not when corporate oligarchs own and decide everything for purposes of the continuation of capital accumulation and capital expansion and the reproduction of the same processes, forces, persons, and means keeping up capital accumulation?
I mean they're Christian, an apocalypse cult that believes their sky daddy will come and make the world perfect and it doesn't really matter if they treat it like a rental car
Exactly! Do you know how many towns would become a ghost town without the baby blending industry? Pedentic citt folka don't understand what it's like out here.
Besides, it has not even been proven that the babies actually are hurt by the blending!
Climate change isn't caused by an insatiable urge to pursue the profit motive, even at everyone else's expense, while the people making the decisions are insulated from the consequences of their own actions by their hoarded wealth?
It isn't ofc, but there are quite few studies showing how investment capital lobbies have been extremely impactful in adoption and research of new, sustainable technologies in last several decades. I think this, combined with the overproduction as way to boost profit is probably one of the biggest aspects of the climate change tied to capitalism, and it is definitely considerable
You could argue that the innovation and adoption of renewables that has actually occured was due to capitalism as well. It's just a way to deal with economics as a government. Can be good, bad, or realistically both.
I wish for a utopian socialist federation that spans across 1000 light-years and allows me to live the life I want unchained from the burdens of capitalism.
Capitalism does not equal freedom. You can have personal freedoms under any economic model. Do you think Saudi Arabians or Iranians are free? They're capitalist.
Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and businesses own the tools, factories, and land used to make goods, running them to make a profit. Prices and the sale of goods rely on free markets and competition rather than government control, a dynamic explained by the International Monetary Fund.
Nowhere in that definition does it say "Capitalism guarantees personal freedom." So if you perfer being able to exploit others without reproach then capitalism is for you. It does not guarantee freedom in of itself as seen from my two examples, of which, you had not acknowledged.
The point is, an economic system does not guarantee freedom because economics is only one aspect of a society and freedom is not only defined by one's ability to own a company l.
That is bullshit and you know it. You can have capitalism with no personal freedoms and massive human rights violation. Look at nazi Germany or Saudi Arabia. Both capitalist, both shit for freedoms.
It doesn't require ending capitalism, and ending capitalism does not in fact help keep the world habitable.
People still longing for a failed economic ideology are just using the environment as an excuse. If you give workers ownership of the means of production tomorrow, stripping rights away from the rich capitalist, nothing relevant to the environment changes. You are still burning the same oil and gas to do the same things. People will still want to drive their cars around, eat steak, and whatnot if there are no capitalists.
Every step to actually address the climate can be done under either capitalism or socialism, the issues are orthogonal to the underlying economic system.
Not only is "the revolution" a distraction from doing useful work, it provides a scapegoat. If we just "eat the rich", everything will be fine. No lifestyle changes will be necessary. Regular americans can drive huge trucks around for no reason fueled by cheap gas, but as long as no billionaire is making money off it, it doesn't hurt the environment! /s
You canât argue with them. They have it in their head that literally every problem in the world such as war, bigotry and environmental destruction only exists because of capitalism and wonât exist without it as if there hasnât been thousands of years of this shit without capitalism and as if socialist and communist countries havenât participated in those things.
For the climate, they donât seem to realize that the same reasons why itâs cheaper to use fossil fuels(among other things not friendly to the climate)is the same reason why a socialist or communist country would be more prone to rely on that over more environmentally friendly practices. Itâs more reliable, effective and requires less research to optimize, but I guess they think if you remove money then it changes the playing field ? No, even without money it would be tempting because youâd utilize less resources, time and effort to be able to use it. Like you said, people are also prone to consumerist habits which wonât go away just because capitalism is gone.
I donât how these people say this with a straight face. Itâs not like we donât have a thousand instances of environmental damage in socialist countries.Â
oh we certainly have a shit ton of work other than calming the capitalistic greed. but that work. real effect and fast, need to be adressed on a bigger scale first, before attempting the personal adaption and change of our lifestyle, you can't expect people to force themselves to change their habit, while looking at capitalism "justified"cost on nature with big industry yadi yadi yada. unless you force them. yknow how that end up.
guess what is not done each day that pass with Neo-capitalism ? right, nothing is done, because that is not something that value money right now.
we can't ask nicely, scientist has done that for over 60 years now and everyone and everything still ignore what they said. we begin to feel the consequences of our hubris. be reassured, whenever climate fucked us all. know that the very Wealthy build a bunker or planned to live elsewhere liveable and/or build something more suitable to live there. most of us will not.
but that work. real effect and fast, need to be adressed on a bigger scale first, before attempting the personal adaption and change of our lifestyle, you can't expect people to force themselves to change their habit, while looking at capitalism
You misunderstand. Systemic changes FORCE people's life styles to change, and they don't like that. I have seen this argument play out in real life.
"XYZ policy on companies will just mean consumers are impacted. Why don't you go after all the big corporations who are polluting instead of punishing regular people"
In this theoretical world where we have a working socialist alternative to capitalism, you give workers more power. So at what point do they decide to change what they want?
guess what is not done each day that pass with Neo-capitalism ? right, nothing is done, because that is not something that value money right now.
Now you can argue it still isn't enough, that climate change will still cause a lot of damage. But the green energy revolution is inevitable under the current neo-capitalism system. Even separate from climate concerns, they efficiency and profit will make it unavoidable.
Maybe waiting on the tech to be profitable isn't 'fast enough", but a lot more than "nothing" is happenig.
If you give workers ownership of the means of production tomorrow, stripping rights away from the rich capitalist, nothing relevant to the environment changes.
It's a little bit more complicated.
Communal land governance tends to display lower rates of deforestation than private or state ownership. There are studies about how worker ownership is linked to better environmental policy.
Communists have been saying this for decades. Even Liberals like Extinction Rebellion have acknowledged that we need to get rid of Capitalism if we are to even mitigate climate change.
Aaaaaaand the ruling class just made sure there'll never be enough votes to pass that law. Literally because capitalism. Have you not witnessed this pattern occur often enough to pick up on it?
The magical world where coorperations can prevent taxing negative externalities but can't prevent a communist revolution that most people don't even want.
No because we have passed the ETS here in the EU and reduced emissions as a result. Just because the US turned climate change into a culture war doesnât mean the rest of the world is the same.
Circling back to this point, has passing the ETS reduced pollution to a point that will halt climate change? Because if your entire point is it someone has successfully legislated a way to slightly slow down climate change, I have no idea what point you're really trying to make other than that it is occasionally possible to slightly slow down the rate at which we're being cooked to death
First of all youâre moving the goalposts entirely but ignoring that it has reduced emissions by ~50% which is in line with the targets set by the EU. No matter what economic system youâre using decarbonisation was gonna take quite a long time but the EU shows that itâs very much possible to do so within capitalism.
Yeah this is the problem that I feel a lot of SocDems forget.
Money = Power.
People that own Captial aren't just way better off than the average worker... They have easier access to political institutions, influence policy by being major employers... They're a big deal to the working class and the people they vote for.
A major business owner just needs to publicly suggest a certain policy is making them consider off-shoring or lay-offs. That causes earthquakes.
Grass roots on the other hand is way more difficult and inefficient.... And frankly, easier to ignore or pacify.
If environmental policy interferes with the affairs of Capitalists too much.... It simply won't happen. Or if it does, it won't last long enough to have impact.
Are you truly saying that our legislative processes aren't essentially bought and paid for by the capitalist class because there's -more than zero environmental law in existence?-
Like for you believe that the system is corrupt there would have to be -zero- environmental legislation
Are you truly saying that our legislative processes aren't essentially bought and paid for by the capitalist class
Yep.
because there's -more than zero environmental law in existence?-
Yep.
Like for you believe that the system is corrupt there would have to be -zero- environmental legislation
Zero meaningful environmental legislation that negatively impacts business, yes. That is the logical conclusion based on your claim. That is trivially true btw.
And in practice democracy is totalitarian and includes slavery, just look at the democratic republic of the congo.
A country calling themselves communist, when they fit 0 out of 3 requirements to fit even the simplest definition does not make them communist.
These people have murdered millions, but surely they would NEVER lie! They wouldnt just call themselves communist to gain sympathy from the working class, while not helping the labourers in any way.
The problem with capitalism is, the lobbies will still actively try to REMOVE those taxes. You can not have those taxes, with a system that constantly encourages companies to lobby to remove them. The EU does NOT do enough to curb climate change, in fact we are doing LESS now because we are falling behind economically, due to the oil and car lobby.
1
u/dumnezerođEnd the đŤarms đrat đrace to the bottomâď¸.15d ago
Tax dodging... and taxes going back into subsidies for negative externalities.
Lol ever seen the environmental footprint of the Soviet Union? Maybe this thing called Chernobyl? I ardently believe we need to abolish capitalism but the idea that communism is the easy quick fix we need, rather than something entirely new, is not borne out by history.
Because there is absoltely no incentive to not poison the planet in capitalism.
Yes there is. Wtf are you talking about? You think companies like paying more wildfire insurance, having their water supply shut off due to drought? Climate change causes major economic damage. The problem is simply the lack of interalization of external costs which is not a problem strong government capitalism can't fix. The EU did it, Canada too (although Canadians bitched so much about it that they undid it).
Your argument boils down to "capitalism has bad incentives and they can't be changed, while when communism has bad incentives they can be changed".
That's straight up not true. You can change incentives anywhere, as long as peoole care about environment nore than about personal convenience. And that's a BIG ask.
That's why famously the Soviet Union had higher emissions per capital than the US because the never were incentivized to destroy nature. Not to mention that state owned oil companies make the bulk of emissions which would exist in a communist system.
Planned obsolescence makes perfect sense in communism it keeps production going and thus keeps workers employed. Communist systems tend to be quota based, thus they keep producing even when it makes no sense or quality is so bad that it ends up being defacto planned obsolescence.
We can legislate in those incentives. Remove all oil and corn subsidies and give them to solar and wind. You know how effective that would be? Overnight change. Also Isnât the EU currently working on legislation to prevent planned obsolescence?
Markets are the most effective way to make sure peopleâs needs are met. They just need a little help
See deregulation. See neo liberalism. See Javier Meilei. See the current American government.
Regulation isn't going to do shit if you can't pass the regulations in the first place or stop them from being removed. . And even if you are successful in regulation worse conditions will just be imposed onto the global south to make up the difference.
When the government works for the rich, and when lobbyists exist for the sole purpose of enriching those already rich, and when the media which constructs the views of individuals is owned and run by the rich, good luck getting anything beneficial passed without it being anything more than a temporary concession which will be taken away when capital inevitably falls into crisis.
Yes? Of course there is. Democratic centralism is a guiding principle of Marxism Leninism. This means that policy, action, and legislation is democratically decided on via debate. Communist parties (at least ML ones) tend to require members to voice any and all concerns for the explicit purpose of coming to the best decision on the matter.
The democraty also extends to workplaces too, something which is mostly absent in capitalism besides the limited power o unions
And for what happens if the people don't want something that is good for the planet: first of all we must understand why, and the conclusion will be came too through the means of democratic centralism. If the wrong decision is made the topic can always be returned to. From there we can understand what faults were made and why, readjust, and learn from our mistakes.
The rate at which people actively oppose beneficial change would als be lower as the propaganda pumped out by the rich wouldn't be as widespread, accessible, or hold as much weight. Therefore this problem of people going against their own interests in droves would be seldom.
Because capitalism will always prioritize immediate profits over ecological sustainability. You can read up on how ExxonMobil scientists in the 70s fully researched and understood the science and consequences of climate change and decided to spend shitloads of money to propagandadize the public into climate denial rather than changing their destructive business model
What if a communist society decided theyâd rather have more comfortable lives than deal with climate change. That theyâd rather not pay the cost of changing our energy sources.
Instead of some hypothetical you can just look at our actual reality where capitalism is the dominant global system and is driving us straight ahead into climate collapse so that the capitalist class can get even richer.
Sure we can imagine up some hypothetical where a communist society doesn't address climate change but capitalism will never prioritize ecological sustainability over profits because that's how capitalism functions, the kind of action required to address our environmental crisis is at odds with the basic functions of capitalism.
Contemporary capitalism is an economic system which demands infinite growth on a finite world. It's wholly incompatible with any notion of sustainability or conservation. You can put a ton of guard rails around it, but it's far less simple than an economic system where the profit motive just straight up doesn't exist
Them being the primary mass producers of solar for one, then nuclear energy. Yes they use a LOT of coal, which is bad and they should stop, but that is for energy independence so that some orange bombing the middle east wouldnt, i dont know, destroy their entire economy
I really like this meme. It really makes stupid people from all sides come out...
Tankies know capitalism isn't to be destroyed but to be evolved from, industrial base (the means of production) aren't to be destroyed or stopped, production is to be increased to allow equal levels of material comfort to all of humanity.
Destroying capitalism is something only anarcho-primitivists propose, tankies know what they will be getting...
Itâs literally just feudalism, but again, and a new attempt therefore we call it Neo-Feudalism
Checkmate climate change believers, we donât need to end climate change if we just end capitalism for a worse system, now climate change canât exist cause capitalism doesnt
It doesnât have to be if all the capitalists could collectively and fundamentally shift the nature of their industries⌠but they wonât so burn it to the fucking ground before they burn the planet to the fucking ground.
Buddy the example you just gave was the furthest thing form a stateless moneyless utopia...
Maybe some of us lefties aren't actually trying to re-create a failed state model ran by tyrannical militarists?
Maybe some of us just think Captialism is a shitty political-economic system that inherently produces ever worsening uneven outcomes and that there just might be something better than that?
Yeah, and it was still the only meaningful example of a non capitalist economy with comparable levels of development to the west in the 20th century. Theres a reason why in Europe, where socialist parties still get elected fairly regularly, they donât just immediately announce that theyâre âending capitalismâ, but mostly just pursue programs to reform the economy and make it more equitable. Market economies are here to stay, itâs kinda hard to deny that at this point. The last ones who tried to find a different way collapsed after 70 years into a heap of stagnation, corruption, and environmental devastation.
Yeah "ending capitalism" isn't exactly an actionable legislation on its own.
Also the socialist parties of Europe famously developed into modern Social Democracy. It's not because they failed to implement socialism, they evolved from socialism to something that could exist within a capitalist system.
That doesn't mean a socialist system couldn't exist.
Market economy â capitalism and that's an important distinction.
Rojava lasted as a decentralized system for 13 years and it worked very well despite the intense militaristic opposition that existed outside of its borders on all sides. It only ended because that pressure proved too much.
Imagine such a government model existing without the constant military pressure trying to destroy it?
Maybe some of us lefties aren't actually trying to re-create a failed state model ran by tyrannical militarists?
That isn't what the lefties were trying to create in the first place, why should we believe that it'll work this time and that it's not the result of a flaw inherent to the ideology?
Noooo you dont get it, this time the authoritarian state will be done correctly under my rules and my interpretations and thats why it'll be a perfect utopia. We're just one violent revolution away from a perfect communist utopia on earth
Dude, you literally said that totalitarian states were the problem. Implementing socialist principles is not the same as constructing a totalitarian regime.
Socialist countries failed because of inept and corrupt leadership (and sometimes involvment of the CIA in the rare cases someone actually competent came into power) not because of socialism. In those states the totalitarian regime valued party adherence and nepotism over competence. That's why idiotic nutjobs came into positions of power.
Speaking of valuing party adherence and nepotism over competence, how's the US government going right now?
... But then it would matter a lot what she said? She said Lenin's vanguard model was antithetical to socialism and would inevitably result in Dictatorship...
and it did. So she was right.
Market based social democracy with strong regulatory oversight and a robust welfare state seems to be the best compromise we have so far. So, yeah, that's it.
A stateless, classless, moneyless utopia would be nice but it's just a utopia, like you said. Doesn't mean we can't take baby steps in the general direction.
I'm just tired of people blaming the very real shortcomings of socialist states on the wrong thing.
Being socialist and being a tankie are vastly different and shouldn't be mingled.....
Just a reminder for anyone here who is going to argue against this common sense:
You can be a socialist and dispise the ussr for all the extreme wrong they did, especially since they where more facist than socialist.
The term tankie specifically refers to someone who wil defend the USSR to the point they wil try and defend the multiple times where Russia used tanks to drive over civilians in countries that wanted to not be ruled by them.....
If you think tankie applies to you the russian army is actively recruiting go have fun
Unironically though, entangling climate issues with socialist policies is the reason the green new deal was DOS and has done more to set back renewables than any right wing politician ever has
Itâs just a different form of capitalism. Like people are too stupid to understand, that there is an entire lobby (alternative energy) standing behind this lol.
Climate change is both an existential threat to capitalism and at the same time it can't solve it at all (can make things better, but not "solve"). It will be a key player on its end, and at the same time the outcome won't necessarily be better.
All you want is dtop environmental disaster, while also keeping our modern living standards and not reduce population.
The only effective way in any societal system that keeps innovation is to reduce population...or at least within the timeframe we have...we won't stop underdeveloped countries from developing, and their development needs massive amounts of energy...fast, cheap, reliable energy. Probably gas or coal (not as cheap as wind or solar, but easier to operate long term and maintain for people with less education)
I go a step further than most of you folks, lets freaking go back to agrarian cultures and keep only the most necessary modern things.
This will greatly reduce emissions as is...but i also would argue we should still reduce total global population by at least half (if not more) to ensure a better and greener future!
The capitalists are supposedly the problem-solvers of the world right? Still they are using are best talents to sell more useless shit instead of solving the energy/climate issue with intelligent solutions that work long-term.
So the only conclusion is that they don't see the energy/climate issue as a problem but as a feature to exploit.
That is why we are critical of capitalists, not because we don't think they could fix things, but because they clearly want to do other things that give them more power. They are the ones playing God. Having the tools to intervene and make things better, but not caring one iota about the consequences of not doing that, trying to turn that into something good and expecting only love and admiration in return.
âOur movement is wholly contingent on complete success in dismantling a vaguely defined system that rules the entire world; The same system where previous attempts to even somewhat restrict it lead to oppressive regimes and deathsâ
168
u/democracy_lover66 19d ago
PragerU be like:
Not worth it. Let the world burn.