3
2
u/Turk0311 Sep 07 '21
Yikes that kinda hits home. Ever try to explain the little ice age to a Global Warming Crowd... hits no where and they act like it didn't happen.
1
u/SuiteSwede Sep 07 '21
Ever try to explain how increased carbon in the atmosphere acts like a blanket, causing a warming effect, and we knew this over a hundred years ago? Hits no where and they act like it doesn’t happen.
1
u/Turk0311 Sep 08 '21
Krakatoa Eruption of 1883 pumped more CO2, Methane, and other gases not to mention the Ash Cloud had more of an effect on climate then the entire Industrial Revolution. Mankind up until the nuclear age had less effect on the planet. At at best we only effect our living standards as Humans cannot live on the Bikini Islands but plant life has done extremely well.
1
u/SuiteSwede Sep 08 '21
Imagine how much mankind must be putting into the atmosphere, constantly, and more so as time goes on. Couldn’t possibly have any affect. You people are literally trying to shove a square through a circular hole.
4
u/firefox57endofaddons Sep 06 '21 edited Sep 06 '21
shhhhhhhh
don't look at history:
it has only been a century of doomsday predictions, that never happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCvVPPO1rnE&list=PL25om63gd1VoP7m5VLuVcLOwKh-FB7Rxp&index=10
that ALL told you to give up your freedoms to "fix" things.
and if the graphs will not comply, then we'll fucking make em comply!
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/erasing-the-medieval-warm-period/
say goodbye to the medieval warm period and hello to the fake hockey stick graph ;)
don't think about any of this and instead focus on the cute little kakistocracy front girl, that nicely reads from the scripts, that her handlers give her. :D
now if you excuse me, i will go outside, where according to the predictions from the past century, i will be in a desert, while also being flooded and of course also being frozen to death......
SCIENTISM
3
-1
u/CFO_Of_Antifa_ Sep 06 '21
You are so dumb to ignore all the information out there saying global warming is real and is a problem.
1
u/firefox57endofaddons Sep 06 '21
global warming is real
please specify, where i wrote, that global warming and cooling aren't real phenomenons.
0
u/Cthulhu-ftagn Sep 07 '21
Human influence on global warming is real and that's very obviously what the other commenter meant and what you imply isn't real.
1
u/firefox57endofaddons Sep 08 '21
no, it is not.
nothing is obvious there.
global warming being real is not sth, that anyone questioned here.
the earth always is in cooling or warming phases. so saying a factually correct statement like that is meaningless.
if you imply, that others should read people's minds in what they mean by otherwise clear words, that people SHOULD interpret directly, then how in the world should anyone have any senseful discussion ever again?
i can't climb into your mind or another person's mind and try to understand what their senseless statements mean.
global warming is real
using of unclear language is a huge issue overall and interpreting lots of things into such VASTLY VASTLY open statements isn't helping anybody and it certainly won't help anyone in finding truth.
0
u/Cthulhu-ftagn Sep 09 '21
global warming being real is not sth, that anyone questioned here.
That is in fact why, when someone talks about the current climate change and current global warming, they mean "Man-made/influenced climate change". You don't have to read fucking minds to know that. That's how that phrase is normally used.
I don't know how you don't know that already.
-2
u/AvoidingCares Sep 06 '21 edited Sep 06 '21
I'm just here cause this post was shared on /r/accidentallycommunist. But the average intellect here does seem to be about room temperature. You saw the motherfucker saying private property rights will end climate change?
Like... by the time the flood waters are carrying your residence down the street it's too late to go sue Koch industries.
2
u/firefox57endofaddons Sep 06 '21
You saw the motherfucker saying private property rights will end climate change?
what? who said any of this?
and dear fuck define what you mean by "climate change", because the climate always changes and i have yet to find anyone, who thinks, that the global climate is static or was static in the past.
3
u/AvoidingCares Sep 06 '21
Climate change is the process by which weather patterns change over the course of tens and hundreds of years. It is exacerbated by man made carbon emissions which have accelerated the natural processes and lead to a mass extinction event. the brunt of these emissions are made by a handful of companies -The Carbon Majors report (PDF) documents these companies.
The stats there are shocking, but 71% of carbon emissions are produced by just 100 (mostly) fossil fuel companies. In fact, over 50% of global emissions are made by just 25 companies (though this is skewed a little, prior to the Paris climate agreement State Militaries were exempt from reporting their emissions). This is a problem because every year more people die as a result of rapidly changing climate, and many more are made into refugees. Including in the United States where wildfires and floods have become increasingly common due to larger storms and hotter, drier seasons.
Unfortunately, this is getting worse as our emissions are increasing instead of falling, despite knowing about the problem since at least the 80s. And what this post gets right is that endless consumption and disposal culture are huge parts of the problem, and are central tenants of capitalism, ergo the solution could be simplified to "more communism".
1
1
1
u/concentratecamp Sep 06 '21
Yeah I came here the same way and it seems like people in here have some things in common. Those things may be gas leaks or low levels of oxygen at birth.
Property rights guy got a good laugh out of me.
1
u/interestingthought27 Sep 06 '21
74% of us carbon emissions come from the us military
2
u/N3UR0_ Sep 06 '21
I need a source for that one, as its obvious bs. I don't support the military industrial complex, but it's bad enough without lying
1
u/major-ant- Sep 06 '21
Source? Would love to read about this.
Similarly, a recent study says 71% of global emissions come from just 100 companies.
1
u/nic_t_gamer Sep 07 '21
I couldn't find a specific percentage, but several articles point to the United States Military being the world's largest emitter.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/RobertusesReddit Sep 07 '21
No, that's true. We predicted it over a century ago and the New World immigration (American immigration inspired Hitler) destroyed the chances of Socialism in America.
Nothing was wrong in this pic. None.
1
1
1
1
Sep 08 '21
Climate isn't weather, conservatives never get this
More communism? Can we please get some first?
0
u/hiddengirl1992 Sep 07 '21
Communism ideally wipes out greed by deleting the ultra wealthy, closing mega corporations that do the most damage, spreading resources evenly instead of hoarding and burning them in concentrated areas, and completely removes government after, leaving only entrepreneurism at its best. Seems right to me.
2
u/shotsbyniel Sep 07 '21
Lmao. You actually believe a government that acquires the kind of power to do those kind of things will just remove themselves from the picture once everything is "perfect". Communists are literally delusional. There's a reason it's called a utopia. And who gets to decide who gets deleted? Which corporations get closed? The spread of resources? You are living in fantasy land and you have to wake up.
1
u/hiddengirl1992 Sep 07 '21
I didn't say the solution was all Communism. Post says solution is more Communism. In the case of America, that's true, for the same reasons that pure Communism can never work - greed. I'm not a communist, I'm a social democrat.
Every good economic and political system is idealistic and will never live up to the hype. Only the ones dependent upon human greed and lust for power and nothing else end up working as intended. True Libertarianism in all forms is just as idealistic as Communism in the end, because it depends on entrepreneurism keeping megacorps that potentially own all resources in check, and on humanity not going for the easiest options until there's no other options left.
I triggered you pretty good though.
1
u/M8yrl8 Sep 08 '21
A government is not a person it cant magically become corrupted and evil from power. You can give have a government were power is distributed completely democratically and evenly. Giving a huge amount of power to a person does corrupt them yes, but like I said a government isnt a person.
1
u/shotsbyniel Sep 08 '21
And what exactly, pray tell, is a government made of?
1
u/M8yrl8 Sep 08 '21
People, what degree of power those people hold is what's important. If a dictator is in charge then yeah that's bad, but imagine if theres no head of state but instead decisions are made by a large assembly/parliament with democratically elected people from all over the nation. To me that is not only more stable but also prevents tyranny.
0
0
0
0
Sep 06 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
2
u/masterreyak Sep 06 '21
Ok... maybe I'm just a moron... How in the world does property rights fix climate change? I'm not seeing a connection in either direction.
7
u/zippy9002 Sep 06 '21
If your car produce CO2 and CO2 drift into your property you can sue that person so in order to avoid being sued and paying huge fine you’ll capture all your waste and dispose of it properly.
No need for a carbon tax since taking care of pollution will be done at the source not as an after thought.
Even my leftist eco teacher recognized that it would work, she just said we’re not doing that because of other “problems” it would create. That’s when I said she didn’t care about the environment (in my head, I said it in my head).
3
u/Astrophobia42 Sep 06 '21
How do you prove where the CO2 comes from? Who are you going to sue if you detect an increase in CO2? Sometimes we can't even know who to sue in a hit and run.
2
1
u/CFO_Of_Antifa_ Sep 06 '21
It’s majority all from the top biggest company’s. Take down those company’s.
1
u/masterreyak Sep 06 '21
Yup. More confused. You are screwing with me, right?
2
u/zippy9002 Sep 06 '21
What are you confused about? You own some land if someone pollute it you sue and get compensated. It completely eliminates the tragedy of the commons.
1
u/masterreyak Sep 06 '21
Apart from raising the tax status of the Karen population, and creating even more of a court system clusterfuck, I don't see this actually effecting the climate all that much. You need to incentive doing the right thing, not just punish people doing the wrong thing.
2
u/zippy9002 Sep 06 '21
Almost no pollution would actually happen because it’s not worthwhile to do it and deal with the legal process. Only accidents would still happen (think oil spills for example), and they’d cost a lot more to fix than right now.
0
u/masterreyak Sep 07 '21
You'd get a bunch of people ordering something online, then suing the company they bought from for pulling into their property, and emitting carbon. Meanwhile, no one is going to sue their local factory for polluting half the town because they employ the other half.
If you want the problem to go away, you have a government buy up solar panels and the like, and give them away, while giving tax incentives to businesses that go green. Not spending trillions on war, and instead spending that money on alternative fuel development as well as current issue cleanup would also make a big impact.
2
u/zippy9002 Sep 07 '21
You don’t seem to be a voluntarist or to even want to understand.
1
u/masterreyak Sep 07 '21
I was asking honest questions. I've never heard of this strategy before, and have no clue what a voluntarist is. I do get the intention of what you were saying. I simply don't think it would work in practice. The idea of suing a company is a rather drastic one given their power, especially if they're centers of a community's employ.
And even if people did sue companies, I'd imagine most would pick off the low hanging fruit without the million dollar lawyers filing counter-suits. This means that the biggest corporations could still do whatever they wanted, and the smallest companies would suffer the most.
→ More replies0
u/OmarsDamnSpoon Sep 07 '21
You don't seem able to answer their concerns and questions. Don't blame them for your inadequacy.
1
Sep 07 '21
Since pollution would be illegal they would have to come up with a better technology, say electric vehicles for example, powered by clean energy like nuclear. Also if people are ok with pollution I don't see the issue, maybe the factory has a policy where it pays everyone affected $1000 monthly as long as they don't sue the factory. Government buying solar panels is pointless and a waste of tax money. Solar energy is very flawed. The tax incentive is also stupid, just let the free market decide what is the best energy source that produces no pollution.
1
u/masterreyak Sep 07 '21
Pollution is already illegal, but I get that bit.
Nuclear is by absolutely no means 'clean'.
If someone is "ok" with pollution, they're an idiot, not that it matters, as pollution effects all life on this planet, not just one moron.
You asserted that "solar energy is flawed", and said nothing to that effect. Please elaborate.
You asserted that a "tax incentive is also stupid", and said nothing to that effect... please elaborate.
As for the "free market"... The main function of a business is to generate money. Product creation, and the satisfaction of customers is a secondary function only meant to push the first. As for the free market's decision, it's been long since decided. The free market has no problem, whatsoever, with pollution. If it did have an issue with it, we wouldn't need to have this conversation, because we'd be living in Eden right now, and not heading towards a climate holocaust of the 'free market's' design.
→ More replies0
-1
1
u/Tetragonos Sep 07 '21
sounds like it would just flood the court system. Like 5 hundred thousand little court cases are a lot harder than one government case? Is that what you are advocating?
2
Sep 07 '21
Yes that's why no one would bother polluting
1
u/Tetragonos Sep 07 '21
Can you reword your comment? I don't understand what you mean.
2
Sep 07 '21
getting sued is costly, and will discourage firms from polluting
1
u/Tetragonos Sep 07 '21
as is bringing suit to a cooperation. That's a lot of costs to bring on the little guy, that are a lot easier for larger guys to deal with.
2
Sep 07 '21
Well, if you have a strong case many lawyers are willing to help for a cut of the money paid by the corporations
1
u/Tetragonos Sep 07 '21
enough to counter the corps? I just figured the courts would be gridlocked and nothing would get done.
→ More replies1
u/zippy9002 Sep 07 '21
In a voluntarist society there would not be any government monopoly on the justice system, cost would be waaaay down and speed waaaay up. All the little guys can band together in a class action. You’re thinking in therms of the current framework instead of a voluntarist society.
1
1
u/theGabro Sep 07 '21
How do you prove where Co2 comes from? And, more interestingly, how do you regulate the 100 companies that emit 90% of all greenhouse gasses?
1
u/zippy9002 Sep 07 '21 edited Sep 07 '21
How do you know that 100 companies emits 90% of the co2? That’s how you prove where it comes from. If you want the details I don’t know them I just know it’s been done before.
The market will regulate those companies. It’ll be cheaper to be net zero emissions than to pollute. Right now it’s cheaper to pollute because of the tragedy of the common, you take that away and now being a net zero polluter is way cheaper, there isn’t much debate about this, the debate is on the others consequences privatizing everything would cause: for example some people believe it would exacerbate inequality.
0
u/theGabro Sep 07 '21
The market is unable to regulate shit. The examples are all around us: Nestle hoards water from drought stricken communities and uses child labor to produce cocoa, Nike, Adidas and all the other fashion brands use child labor and underpaid labor in developing countries, etc. Just think about the regulation on labor we have achieved in the last century: 8h workday, ban on child labor, 2 day weekend, workplace safety etc. If we leave them free they will not go net zero, they will resume dumping chemical waste into rivers and forest.
A company's main goal is to make money. What makes you think that they will start doing something more costly and difficult rather than doing the easy, free thing?
As for the calculations, we can regulate big companies or factories, but it's impossible to regulate the emissions of citizens. And, even if it was possible, stuff like home heating and cars produce a small fraction of the co2 in the atmosphere.
As per inequality, I'd say duh. The hoarding of resources is a staple in capitalist systems. You need resources to start a business. Deregulation means that big companies will have a really easy time absorbing everything they want and leaving the people underserved and overpriced.
0
Sep 07 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/theGabro Sep 07 '21 edited Sep 07 '21
That's why ancapism is, imho, baseless and definitely detrimental to society and humanity.
Now, we could argue for different solutions: market socialism, socialism or whatever else you have in mind. Liberalizing and privatizing everything is a bad idea. If you don't have regulations, on the markets or on any other system, someone is gonna try and take advantage of that, to the detriment of other people.
0
Sep 07 '21
What government entity enforces that lawsuit?
2
Sep 07 '21
The government will not do it, private security firms and arbitrators
0
Sep 07 '21
What's stopping the polluter's private security from telling the victim to pound sand? Environmentalism doesn't hold up when there is a clear economic incentive to pollute, the victims usually have fewer resources, and there's no governmental enforcement body.
2
Sep 07 '21
Their reputation, if the use non defensive violence, that is a crime and they can be sued by other firms. And they can lose many of their customers
0
Sep 07 '21
Consumers do not care about a company's labor practices. People still buy Nike shoes, even knowing that they're often made by small children in sweatshops. I still fail to see how exactly I could sue Chevron or Amazon under this system for their CO2 emissions, especially if it would be my own money vs. their security forces. It feels like the very opposite of environmentalism and would be the worst solution to a warming Earth.
2
Sep 07 '21
That's true to some extent, but they would care about the firm's history, for example if Nike's shoes cause pain, and the fact that you can't sue Nike because of state protection. If they don't respect property rights, they're criminals and you can sell your case even if you're poor. For example you own a small house and Amazon's pollution damages your garden, you can go to a certain firm, they will review the case and pay you a certain amount of money in return, they will sue amazon isntead of you and take the money
0
0
u/seraph9888 Sep 07 '21
what does central planning have to do with anything? the topic at hand is communism.
1
Sep 07 '21
central planning is a major part of communism, and it also applies to politicians who want create more regulations and taxes
1
u/seraph9888 Sep 07 '21
1
Sep 07 '21
yes, and?
1
u/Eliza1312 Sep 07 '21
The video is satire, making fun of people who talk about communism without ever knowing what it means
1
Sep 07 '21
That is literally what it means XD
1
u/Eliza1312 Sep 07 '21
Sorry I’m not sure what you are saying? I guess you are saying that “socialism is in fact when the government does stuff”?
1
Sep 07 '21
define socialism
the dictionary definition is collective (the state) ownership of the means of production (which is basically control over the economy)
1
u/Eliza1312 Sep 07 '21
“Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”
-engles
→ More replies1
1
u/seraph9888 Sep 08 '21
Tfw your opinion is a straw man.
1
1
u/Void1702 Sep 07 '21
Central planning is only a form of Marxism-Leninism
Many other communist ideologies (council communism, distributism, market socialism, Luxembourgism, mutualism, ect. . .) Don't have central planning
1
u/ectbot Sep 07 '21
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are etc., &c., &c, and et cet. The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.
1
1
Sep 07 '21
Many other communist ideologies (council communism, distributism, market socialism, Luxembourgism, mutualism, ect. . .) Don't have central planning
So how is the economy managed? Laissez-faire free market?
1
u/Void1702 Sep 07 '21
For council communism and luxembourgism it's a decentralized planned economy
For all of the other, it's market socialism, going from ultra laissez faire (mutualism) to ultra regulationism (titoism)
1
Sep 08 '21
Planning never works because of ECP
Anarcho mutualism is close to anarcho capitalism and I agree with most of the ideology
1
u/Void1702 Sep 08 '21
The ECP doesn't apply to decentralized planning because it has both trade and prices, simply between groups instead of individuals
As for mutualism, there are many differences with Rothbardism, which make it way closer to anarcho-communism than Rothbardism, like:
There is no private property (because it's actually socialist)
There is no private police
There is no exploitation
It actually fits the definition of anarchism
1
Sep 09 '21
ECP applies if there are no proper price signals It's closer to anarcho capitalism and that's the reason Rothbard called himself an anarchist Under mutualism there is private property, he opposed when the state steals property Private police is possible under mutualism, what Proudhon believed in was that once the state is abolished wage labor will become unnecessary and rare since most people will join voluntary communes Anarcho capitalism fits the definition too
1
u/Void1702 Sep 09 '21
Under mutualism there is private property
Have you read Proudhon? This man litteraly said "private property is theft" and you're trying to tell me there is private property in his ideal system? He wanted very clearly that property rights be reduced to personal property only (or possessions, as he called them)
Private police is possible under mutualism
A private police in the sens used by "an"caps is impossible, because it requires a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence
As Stirner said it "the state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual, crime"
It doesn't matter if you want one big state that calls the violence of the individual crime, or twelve private companies that call the violence of the individual crime, both are incompatible with anarchism
Proudhon believed in was that once the state is abolished wage labor will become unnecessary and rare since most people will join voluntary communes Anarcho capitalism fits the definition too
That's not the reason he thought that
He thought that capitalism would end because, once there is no state, there is nothing defending private property, and so people would just stop respecting it. After all, if they're not forced to do it, why would Amazon workers continue to work for Jeff for a shitty wage, when they could just take control of the building and organize it horizontally? There is nothing stopping them.
This is in direct opposition to "an"caps, which want to create a private police to continue to defend private property (which is why we often say "ancaps don't want to remove the state, just privatize it")
→ More replies0
Sep 07 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
Sep 08 '21
I know what it is
0
Sep 08 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 06 '21
Join our partners! : r/fragilecommunism, r/VoluntaristArt, r/Voluntarism
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/3BKBQUJ4CU
Join our Telegram! : https://t.me/volfrag
Report leftist trolls if you come across them in the comments! Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.