They say that like it’s a bad thing.
What kills me is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The longer they fight against change, the more people they will convince that capitalism itself is the problem.
Exactly. End both of them
Maybe capitalism needs to suck it up and pull itself up by its bootstraps instead of needing subsidized fossil fuels. /s
↑ This, but without the /s.
In particular, we need to protect the free market by creating a carbon tax to compensate for fossil fuels’ negative externalities and level the playing field for “greener” competitors.
Not taxing carbon is anti-capitalist protectionism.
That or have the state stop giving money to corpos that definitely don’t need it, or by breaking up monopolies just so fair competition can be a thing.
Seriously, thinking that America’s system is capitalist is just as stupid as thinking it’s the land of the free
What murica has is what happens when you take the breaks off and let crap run to its logical extreme (and with rampant corruption where the cars breaks used to be)
Regulatory capture.
Revolving doors.
Political dark money.
Monopolies that manage to be technically not monopolies some frakkin how.
Rackets that never get charged as such.
Planned obsolescence.
Anticompetetive and anti consumer practices all over and the erosion of rights - you effectivly don’t own what you buy and can’t resell it anymore.
Trade agreements to export this insanity to other countries.
Granting corporations the ability to sue NATIONS over “lost profits” in response to resonable regulation!
Instead of “harnessing greed” its run rampant and unchecked to the point its destroying our environment at an insane pace. And its spreading beyond america. It has been for years most people just haven’t realized it yet. (Ed: by “it”, I mean this corrupt thing that America thinks of as capitalism, is overtaming what you may think of as calitalism)
The cancer has metastisized, and we’ll need to reinvent a strongly regulated similar system that rejects the clear broken parts in order to excise it - capitalism as is, is lost. It’s not sustainable.
I realize I’m talking in a very pro socialist/pro communist space but what I’m saying doesn’t mean I think capitalism was always terrible. But any good times it had are soon coming to an end.
Bold of you to assume that’s capitalist. If the state intervenes by favouring monopolies against any possible competition that’s definitely not a free market
Favoring Monopolies againts monopolies?? What are you attempting to say? That sentance didn’t make sense.
Need a meme for can’t end capitalism if it ends itself first.
Competition, I meant competition
Woah humans can and do make mistakes!
Is there a lemmy equivalent to /r/SelfAwareWolves? Because this fits.
Make it and crosspost!
Ah, it exists
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: [email protected]
selfawarewolves material
You don’t need to end capitalism to help the climate.
Just properly regulate it. It’s a tool just like every other economic system, and shouldn’t be hoisted to a higher pedestal. Every system that fails fails because regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption. Capitalism’s only strength is it took longer to get there because all the power was spread out for awhile.
That’s a pretty shallow take on historic economics.
Capitalism had a role to serve as the transition out of feudal economics.
Now it’s time to do better.
Better as in what though?
We’ve used every economic system by itself, and the only really successful version is a combination of them with proper regulation. What else do you do?
We’ve used every economic system by itself
Because a few hundred years with constantly changing technology is an exhaustive test of every possible version of organizing society. Pack up folks, it’s all been tried and only one thing works or will ever work.
So it’s better just because the guy who created it said so?
Like half of Marx’s theories are gross oversimplifications that are definitely biased towards his point
Well communism has been tried and it didn’t work. It was trounced by the capitalist world which, nevertheless, adopted some socialist ideas, especially in Europe.
So no, it’s not time to do better. Communism isn’t the next step after capitalism. It clearly isn’t remotely capable of competing with capitalism in the long term. No matter how many thousands of pages of theoretical wishful thinking people have written about it, if it doesn’t work in the real world it doesn’t work. It always ends up in authoritarian, repressive regimes that are economic backwaters. To the extent that they desire secular growth they have to open up markets like China did, and simply become authoritarian and somewhat economically free.
The biggest issue is that this is a doomer self defeating argument. If you don’t believe something is possible, then it isn’t. Even if total communism is an unreachable goal, why not try to move closer to it? Liberalism is a walking contradiction, with economic liberalism being almost incompatible with social liberalism. That hasn’t stopped it from having drastic positive and negative effects on human history from people trying to live by it.
Furthermore, the idea that communism is a dead end reinforces the toxic view that anyone attempting to strive closer towards it is a threat that must be eliminated. Anti-communist sentiment has led to and enabled some of the worst atrocities of all time. The best part is that many of the people accused of being communists merely wanted liberation.
The fact is, if communism was wiped from existence and Karl Marx erased from history, the same ideas would evolve out of Christianity, or liberalism, or any ideology that isn’t a fucking death cult. This is because Marx did not make a unique and unprecedented observation, he just put the pieces together first. Egalitarianism and sharing is as important to human success as territorialism and self interest.
Finally, Marx did believe communism would come out of industrialized societies with enough resources to go around. That is not the state that the Soviet Union or China were in when they declared themselves communist. Making absolute statements about the end state of all attempts at something is setting yourself up for failure far more than trying a new way to make something theoretically possible happen.
regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption
And vice versa! Corruption leads to lack of regulation. It’s a shit circular dance that I feel like we’re doomed to repeat regardless of the economic system we pick.
Corruption nearly always leads to more regulation but targeted against competitors.
I think it’s pretty clear we aren’t necessarily talking only about the quantity of bills passed, but also the quality
This (please don’t stone me for just saying a word, but I tried to express this point in another comment)
Lack of regulation? I’d say it creates even more regulation to keep corruption going
Agreed. Capitalism is a horrible master but a good slave. Just like we regulated the other forces of nature (like fire) to harness them in our favour, so should we harness market forces to work for us.
Capitalism works well when there is plenty of potential for growth, but when there are non-monetary reasons (such as the literal end of ecosystems favorable to human life) that require adjustments or even degrowth, it quickly devolves into feudalism - and the problem is that we do not have the means to quickly stop CO2 emissions without tightening our belts in energy consumption, which in turn requires some degree of degrowth.
You don’t need to end capitalism to help the climate. Just properly regulate it.
Except that politicians (i.e. those that would be doing the regulating) all have a price, and for oil barons no price is too high; and bribing is still magnitudes cheaper than stopping the destruction of the environment.
It’s a tool just like every other economic system, and shouldn’t be hoisted to a higher pedestal.
If it’s not objectively better nor special, why not try something more equitable that doesn’t siphon 99% of all resources to the
aristocracyelite and leaves everyone else fighting for the crumbs?Why keep using a system that prescribes that the hungry should starve if they can’t afford food even though we already produce more than enough to feed the whole planet?
Yeah, we need regulation but no direct intervention like the state is currently doing to protect monopolies.
Like, make some rules to keep competition fair but don’t go to specific companies to protect them
Regulation? Sounds like communism to me
Regulating is definitely not like a command economy
The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. It’s just that capital would grow slower. You can have a green capitalism. It just that no one invested in that
The problem is externalities. Companies have to be held responsible for their damage.
If governments held companies liable for the full cost of fixing their damage to humanity and earth I honestly don’t know how many would be left.
I’m sorry but you missed the memo that polluting is free
It’s cheaper than taking measures against it, but it for sure ain’t free
“Green capitalism” only exists if green energy is more profitable than climate-harming alternatives
Given the multiple decades of oil and gas infrastructure, that’s not realistic.
In theory, consumer demand for green energy could make this a reality, but it would have to be a massive swing. And in practice, most consumers will go for the cheapest option - in many cases, given their resources, they have to.
The other way that green energy could become more profitable is through heavy government regulation. So… yeah you could have a green ‘capitalism’ if the State manages the market, and withstands the corporate pressure to withdraw. But that has literally happened nowhere
I suppose hypothetically you could argue that IF a company invested heavily in green technology and IF that investment resulted in a cheaper form of energy, AND that technology also applied to the supply chain, then we could have green capitalism. But i mean that’s highly speculative and it also would be entirely a coincidence
Dissenting voice here.
While that’s most often the argument made by activists, in reality the war seems to be between the old money vs the new money.
The old money has all the well established influence, the infrastructure, the politicians and media in their back pocket etc…
But the new money has the new tech, all the innovation, the online discourse in support of it and the centralised ones have grown big enough to not be so easily buried by the old money (like the large scale solar/wind farms, the tidal energy farms etc…) and the decentralised ones work in such a way that crushing them all wouldn’t undo what they’ve already done (like selling home electricity systems like solar panels and smaller wind turbines that sit on the roofs of houses)
What we’re seeing now is the changing of the guard and its why our leadership is so geriatric and old. The old money has had them in their back pockets for decades and they’re finding it far more difficult to get the younger elected officials to get on board with them, but said younger officials are more than happy to accept lobbying from the new money industries (renewables) so the old money, who still hold control, are keeping “their guys” in power as long as they possibly can. But due to the internal politics of each party, that’s getting harder and harder.
Capitalism is still very much alive and well and any political revolution will only expedite the changing of the guard.
But as you said, activists often use climate change as an excuse for “overthrowing capitalism” and replacing it with a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and I think this tweet is actually referencing this rather than thinking it to be the logical conclusion
Which itself isn’t a good idea.
Just look at the environmental record of self-professed socialist nations like the USSR and China (including before they opened up their market). Each was an ecological catastrophie. Removing capitalism in no way guarantees any sort of environmental protection or green policies.
If anything the best thing we can do is promote the new money clean energy industries.
Or investing in improving things like fusion energy and superconductors
I miss r/PragerUrine. Par for the course for a right wing cesspool
“Think tank” as in circlejerk.
I’ve only recently come across PragerU on Youtube, and ever since I have only been rolling my eyes at what they say.
The mothers days day after I had a baby, they sent me a book in the mail about a boy and a dog (I think the dogs name was Otto) celebrating mothers. It was weird but historically accurate. They said that one of the founding fathers mother was a good mother because she taught the founding fathers the bible. Im not sure what to do with the book… Donate it?
Burn it.
They certainly shouldn’t complain about reciprocity. They will though.
Send them another book, “The Wright Brothers”. At least their mom was an awesome lady, a goddamn mechanical engineer, and a college graduate. She taught them how to bang on and tinker with stuff and ta-da now we have airplanes.
They’re yet another cancer on society…
This was the final straw for me to finally get off FB, toooooooo many (unhinged) “friends” quoting PU as facts & citing them as a source. Pure propaganda garbage.
Yes, that’s the goal, Dennis, you overrated loser
Honest question, what economic or political system exists out there that would be better for climate change?
Or is the assumption that system doesn’t exist yet?
There are several ideas out there, but yes they generally require transitioning away from capitalism. The one I’m particularly fond of is called a “library economy”, where we no longer commoditize anything that isn’t consumable. Imagine instead of buying a wheelbarrow and shovel to do some yard work, you go to the gardening library and checkout the things you need. When you’re done in about 3 weeks, you return the items back to the library.
In general though, any planned economy would be far more efficient and less wasteful. Imagine that instead of 30 different TV’s with the exact same panel, there’s 2 or 3 types of tv with that panel. The way Walmart operates is a perfect example of a planned economy.
Library actually sounds nice. Funny you mentioned wheelbarrow, I actually need one for a project, but have no space for one, and hate the idea of buying something I’ll need once. I’ll end up renting one, but would be great to check one out.
My library literally has vacuums. Forcing one system down society’s throat is why socialism ultimately loses the narrative game. It’s a religion.
I don’t see how a library economy would work with a lot of things. Like, if I wanted to do a house cleaning day, I go to the cleaning library and rent a vacuum. But what if I drop something on the floor…I have to check out a vacuum, just to clean it up? Then what if all the vacuums are checked out? It really seems horrible inefficient and a logistical nightmare.
Imagine instead of buying a wheelbarrow and shovel to do some yard work, you go to the gardening library and checkout the things you need.
I get the sentiment but that sounds awful. Do I need to go borrow a mountain bike every time I want to go for a ride which I now do about 3 times a week? What about my hobby as a maker? Do I need to go borrow all the necessary tools every time I want to build something?
This would basically mean that I get almost nothing done ever because when the inspiration strikes my tools are nowhere to be found.
Don’t Google what planned economies did to the Aral Sea and it’s climatic consequences
Not disagreeing with your central point, but it’s worth noting that planned economy has been tried and it failed, not sure to planning errors but fundamental systemic issues with the approach.
Any system that has some growth built into it will eventually cause problems, it’s just that some of them, like capitalism, are very efficient at getting us to these points faster. The best system for the climate was discarded long ago, as we moved out of the hunter-gather phase and discovered techniques in maximizing our energy into other things besides just surviving. Agriculture and all that it allowed were the first steps into taxing the earth’s balance.
If you want to avoid saying socialism, communism, or true communism (anarchism) then try library economy or gift economy. Some nice examples I’ve heard.
I guess where I get thrown off by statements like this is thinking of socialist and communist examples of recent history. They all seem to consume as fast as their capacity allows, never seems that different from capitalism. I know a lot of examples aren’t perfect representations of that economic style, but closest examples we have. Just always seemed to me the idea of eliminating capitalism to heal climate change should be, eliminate all systems we currently have in favor of something new.
Library economy sounds interesting
That’d just it, there’s nothing as efficient as it current system. There are plenty of options that are less efficient and better for the environment/people but nothing that’s as efficient in terms of resource allocations.
Except that some of the absolute worst ecological tragedies in the modern world were done in socialist systems, largely because they were inefficient, central planning made it more effective, and people couldn’t say no or mitigate it. I honestly think that people use socialism as a catch-all to be a system where they can force through the changes they would prefer to see in the world.
Meanwhile, some of the most effective ecological mitigations of the modern world were done through legislation and regulation of a capitalist system. Example: the banning of CFCs and water management.
It’s largely our growth as a population that’s caused the issues and it requires drastic action at all levels to live within our means. We can live more sustainably and we are getting there but it does require an efficient system and an educated populous. That results in better regulations on markets that can account for externalities.
Poisoning the waterhole hurts everyone regardless of the system. There needs to be consequences put in place for doing so, and by the international nature of the problem, it requires treaties to get all systems aligned. That takes time and effort and we are getting there.
It is absolutely not our growth as a population that has affected climate change. That’s capitalist doomer propaganda. Those actually responsible for it are the few at the top of capitalist hierarchies. Politicians, billionaires, oil and coal barons. Right now we van feed up to 11 billion people, yet there is still mass starvation and poverty. Capitalists require poverty so that people are desperate enough to work the shitty jobs the capitalists “create”.
As for the rest of what you said, I briefly touched upon this, but even CCP and USSR admitt(ed) they weren’t really communist, and whether they’re socialist is extremely debatable. They’re not communist because by their own admission they’re preparing for a communist world, but they keep saying that and it never comes about. These regimes lie constantly, but even if they lied rarely I’d still not believe they want actual communism because it’d involve giving up their power. What these states actually are is state capitalist.
They’re communist in the same way the Nazis were socialist, or the DPRK is a democratic republic: they’re not.
I think one way to make capitalism suck less would be abolishing publicly owned corporations. Having shareholders to please creates pressure to grow the company’s value even when there is no good reason to. I think it would be far better if companies stayed as family owned mom and pop shops and weren’t allowed to snowball.
Remember that the only reason for the enshittification of Reddit is that it’s doing an IPO. Likewise, I recently noticed that the company that owns my local mini golf course is publicly traded. Since the course has already been built there is no room for meaningful growth and any attempt to grow the company’s value by turning visits into an ‘experience’ or a ‘package day out’ will irritate people like me who are just looking to pay to use a barbones course.
Socialism.
Capitalism is inherently a wasteful of resources and also doesn’t value human life nor the planet’s life. The planet and people are just something to be exploited to enrich the top capitalists who contribute nothing.
It encourages planned obsolescence, short term profit making, and production of commodities which exist solely to turn profit, etc.
A socialist economy, if not being constantly undermined and sabotaged by the capitalist imperial core cough , would exist to meet the needs of the people, the workers. There is no capitalist class under this economy. All surplus value goes to some collective, the state usually, to be held and used in common for the betterment of the people who labored. If all countries adopted this outlook and abolished their capitalist classes and liberal democracies which exist solely to protect the capitalists, then all resources could/would go straight to necessary resource production. Things like food, housing, etc. would be met very quickly due to technology that already exists. This is absolutely not an issue. It’s only an issue due to hoarding, poor/zero distribution of resources under capitalism, and purposeful scarcity as a “disciplining” tool for labor.
Once basic needs are met, luxury commodities can also be created. This is where BUT NO IPHONE? VUVUZELA? comes in. People incorrectly attribute technological innovations to the economic system instead of realizing that 1) capitalism had absolutely nothing to do with smartphones or the internet existing and 2) these things would exist under a socialist economy as well, however the end result may look different simply due to a focus on things that last longer and aren’t meant to be chucked in the bin after 2 years. The only reason our gadgets die so quickly is so we can be sold more gadgets and this causes more surplus labor (profits) to be sucked into the capitalist class. Remove that thievish incentive and you remove the excessive waste associated with it while retaining better commodities that meet the desires of society in a “fair” way that doesn’t destroy the world for the benefit of the few.
Basically imagine a world run by those who labor and importantly a world not designed to simply suck all the profits of exploitative labor under bullshit made up reasons to the 1% and 0.1%. Some people call it utopian. To some, the idea of people cooperating, which is the “natural” state of man, instead of being at each other’s throats because some rich thieving class put them in that position, is inconceivable. And to those people, they should examine why it is they so readily accept the bullshit shoveled down to them from those with every incentive to kill them and the planet and why they dismiss so easily as “utopian” the most obvious solutions. “Oil companies are raping the earth to enrich a few people? What if we… didn’t have… oil companies…?” That logic is never allowed. And it’s worth asking why it is people don’t look to the simple answers that we can very clearly see would be better for the average person. Your “honest question” (ok dude) here is a perfect example of this fascinating phenomenon. You already knew the answer, yet something prevented you from embracing the solution and instead posting bad faith questions. Well, anyway, that’s a different topic, I suppose.
My “honest question” was not asking if a better system could be described, that much is obvious. My question was about the intent of statements like OP. I was probing at the idea that current socialist or communist examples are better than capitalism (perhaps marginally). My understanding is that doesn’t seem so.
Per my other reply, I think the answer to my question is yes, the path forward is to trash all the systems we have at the moment and shoot for something closer to what you described.
Read the phrasing of my question, I asked if any systems exist, not theorized.
Best comedy website ever
Uh huh
deleted by creator
