- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
There’s clearly a lean to the left side of things in Lemmy instances, with many people attacking people at the right.
In some cases regarding the climate crisis, there’s people blaming it on capitalism while hinting that communism/socialism are the solution to the climate crisis, because somehow having the state controlling the entire economy will lead to stop CO2 emissions.
A bit from the article:
The best way to protect the environment is to get rich. That way, there is enough money not only to meet the needs of ordinary people, but also to pay for cleaner power plants and better water-treatment facilities. Since capitalism is the best way to create wealth, humanity should stick with it.
Not the first time I’ve heard about this concept, and the more i look into the world the more I agree with it. Being green is kind of a luxury that not many people can afford, and the poorer people are the less they can afford green technology.
What a croc - never trust anything “left vs right” from the Cato institute. Cato has never seen a problem that capitalist billionaires could not solve and “communism” did not create.
Either way - capitalism does not care to solve climate change because we allowed the capitalists to externalise the costs. If we prices climate damage into the cost of goods - sure capitalism could perhaps be less than evil. But of course capitalism breed oligarchs and oligarchy and thus markets were deformed to benefit the oligarchs (and socialise risks while privatising profits).
You know how you improve capitalism? You add a very large dose of socialism
From 2023 perspective that does seem like a viable path indeed.
You can’t “add socialism to capitalism” If the workers don’t own the means of production then it’s not socialist
You can inject state socialism in various aspects. The welfare state is a form of state socialism. It’s in terrible form right now, but yeah it’s still socialistic. Firefighters, police, and the military are all forms of social services, with the keyword being social, as in socialism.
I agree with you that I’d rather socialism than capitalism, but to say you can’t “add socialism” is simply untrue. It’s better than nothing, but not what we should strive for as a goal. Plus socialism will never occur without a gradient with the only caveat being an apocalyptic world war.
Having state apparatus does not make socialism. Those are not the means of production so they are not related. Lenin discussed this
Lenin doesn’t own socialism. And I didn’t say it would be socialism. You can have socialistic concepts. Those things are still in and of themselves socialism but don’t exist in a socialistic system in wide scale.
No one is saying socialistic capitalism is socialism. So don’t argue that point. When that’s your conclusion, it means you argued against the wrong thing. If you enjoy strawman and scarecrows, have at it I guess…just don’t expect anyone to want to have any worthwhile discussion with you until you actually respond to what people are saying and not something else.
Because those practices are not socialistic. If it is not related to socialism, it’s not socialistic
It literally is related to socialism. Ffs, I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. You’re offering nothing of value to counter with other than “no.” I can’t tell if you’re even serious or just trolling now. What is wrong with your ability to communicate?
Those are literally socialistic services. They’d be enacted the same way in socialism. You understand one little bit of socialism and you’re grasping on it with white-knuckles hands and closing your eyes chanting “I can’t hear anything else.”
It’s tiring. I’m done trying to discuss with you. You’re as aggravating as a cavity and as amusing as the appointment to fill the aforementioned cavity. There’s nothing of value in talking to you.
No, the issue is that you haven’t read Lenin. He explained this very clearly on why these are apparatus of the capitalist state designed to support the capitalists in class antagonism. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production in a transitionary state where the state slowly withers away.
In my opinion when you start having oligarchs and this amount of wealth inequality, it’s only a symptom that the state is failing to do what was created to do, at-least in theory.
The state should be only a regulator, more like a referee in the market. Currently everywhere in western democracies the state is failing to do it. We have the lower income people getting taxed to hell, either directly or by proxy while the uber-rich are influencing the state regulation directly.
Do not take this as a personal attack but your perspective is naive. All around the world capitalists argue for libertarianism or other forms of state stepping back from regulating oligarchy. It’s a feature of capitalism to aim for oligarchy. At least in practice.
Just like 20th century Soviet/Chinese/Cuban communism did not prevent oligarchs. Neither does the current crop of capitalism. They both - in practice- created easy path to oligarchy.
I understand your point, that’s why I consider that the state should be an independent regulator. What’s happening right now is that due to corruption the state is failing to do it so.
I’m changing the user note I added to you from “right wing nut” to “confused socialist”
Cato institute capitalism by nature tends toward maximum inequality
Exactly. It’s Cato directly that it arguing for unregulated market in an oligarchy. So OP needs to be clear who wrote the source.