• TheOminousBulge@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Maybe capitalism needs to suck it up and pull itself up by its bootstraps instead of needing subsidized fossil fuels. /s

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ↑ 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.

      • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well there was a guy with a funny beard who wrote about what happens when capitalism produces more goods and services than could ever be reasonably consumed by the populace of the world. He wrote about how there were basically 2 coutcomes. Either the the rising supply just keeps pushing prices down until the only issue comes down to a logistics and distribution problem and money functionally becomes pointless and state power doesnt have any heirarchy to enforce. Or the people with money and power enforce artificial scarcity, through tactics like letting crops die in the fields, or only release so many diamonds into the market and promiting it as a good thing, to protect their wealth and power.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That seems more like a jab at capitalism than anything I said in that previous question.

            Better as in what? What else hasn’t been tried?

            • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Consider this: modern capitalism was pretty much inconceivable to people living in the feudal era. In the same way, it is possible that the system we need is inconceivable to us at the moment. Critiquing capitalism and advocating for a move away from it is still useful.

              There are plenty of things that haven’t been tried aside from small-scale examples:

            • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is a jab at capitalism. But the theory as the funny beard man stated it would be an evolution of capitalism. Capitalism was very good at making technological progress, advancing productive capacity immensely. His critique is that all that progress wasn’t used to make people’s lives better.

              The major iterations of communism that everyone points to didn’t start with fully industrialized societies. They were predominantly agrarian societies coming out of a monarchy, that were pushed through industrialization very rapidly and were left extremely unstable and subject to extreme authoritarianism.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Socialism is probably the most realistic solution that’s been “half tried” (and yes there’s a difference between socialism and communism, the right just doesn’t want people to know it because they might start thinking there’s a viable alternative)… State run non profit corporations for all essential needs, capitalism for things that aren’t essential. We went as far as creating some state run corporations, some of them non profit, but we never moved far enough in that direction to truly see how beneficial it can be for the masses to not have to enrich investors when buying food or clothing or renting an apartment…

          • Torvum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh the guy who only complained and made effective criticisms with no realistic alternative, yeah sounds like a modern communist to me.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Corruption nearly always leads to more regulation but targeted against competitors.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s pretty clear we aren’t necessarily talking only about the quantity of bills passed, but also the quality

    • subarctictundra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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 aristocracy elite 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?

    • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • zepheriths@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s been the shorthand that people use because it’s so similar to reddit and it’s easy to understand.

          They’re called communities and I don’t actually know how to link to a community using the Lemmy format.

          I think it’s !memes@lemmy.world

        • rbits@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I think it stands for community. To visit c/196@blahaj.zone for example, you can go to lemmy.world/c/196@blahaj.zone. Although I’m not sure writing c/ links to the community in comments

    • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • ???@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve only recently come across PragerU on Youtube, and ever since I have only been rolling my eyes at what they say.

    • frenchdresses@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • tpyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love animals. I hate mosquitoes. If one gets in my house I’ll hunt it down and smash it gleefully. Then apologize and tell it I feel bad because it didn’t choose to be born a mosquito

        Same for this book. I love books and feel they should be respected, but perhaps this one is like a mosquito and maybe should be disposed of into the recycling

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Che Banana@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • endlessloop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • endlessloop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          My library literally has vacuums. Forcing one system down society’s throat is why socialism ultimately loses the narrative game. It’s a religion.

      • strykerx@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • claymedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it’s not really a feasible idea, imo. People are terrible and it would be a classic tragedy of the commons.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A library economy doesn’t mean you can’t also own things. You can own a vacuum, and then borrow a steamer for the big spring cleaning. Or say you’re like me and vacuums aren’t necessary most of the time. Instead of owning one, I could go and get one once a month.

          • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Interesting! Would there be a limit to how much any person can “check out” or for how long? How is this different from renting tools in the current system?

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So most of what I see about a library economy is that you can use items indefinitely, and I absolutely think that we should have that ability. The actual mechanism of how it works is up in the air, and hasn’t been deeply explored to my knowledge. What I imagine is that people say “I need this for x time” and it gets catalogued. If someone tries to check out a luxury item (imagine like a book or something) after the due date, they must return the other item first or has the option to extend the borrowing term as far as needed. Things that would be essential would still be available, but the person gets reminded about their obligation to the community to have the item returned.

              As for how it’s different, an everything library can exist in some capacity in all systems. The difference is that a library economy allows for items to be used without cost, and doesn’t commoditize the items. It creates a system of mutual respect towards the rest of the community, and incentivizes groups of people to act creatively together for projects. It functions more like a store where you don’t buy anything and return it to the community, rather than paying money to use a tool for a week. It also incentivizes highly durable, extremely usable objects (imagine the right to repair, but without any anticonsumer behavior)

      • Thorny_Thicket
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No not at all! Instead of thinking about this as the only way to get things, think about how you get things now. Just replace stores with libraries. You can own things that you use regularly (basically through an indefinite borrow from the transportation library), but borrow other things as needed

          • Thorny_Thicket
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can already go to a library and borrow a power tool or a shovel though. No need to end capitalism to do that.

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s great! I’m willing to bet that they call it “the library of things”, right? Yes, these everything libraries exist already in a small and limited capacity, generally serving a small area. The reason I brought it up is because the library economy is an alternative to capitalism in seeking solutions for climate change.

              The reason capitalism would need to end is because capitalism is all about growth for the sake of growth; the ideology of cancer. This means that capitalists aren’t happy with creating what’s necessary, they want to manufacture as much as possible as cheaply as possible to get all of the money. If a library economy exists beside capitalism, it will be attacked and eroded endlessly. Just look at the publishing industry’s attack on libraries for digital media. They’re creating artificial scarcity on digital goods, something that is literally unbound by quantity.

        • infectoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Only just discovered the concept now in this thread but I guess it’d work like any other library. You’d just check out the stuff you need that you choose not to own for what ever reason.

          If you want to own a mountain bike because you would use it regularly then that would be fine. But if you need a drill press for a project you can go check one out.

          Just guessing here as I’ve done no reading on this subject.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s exactly right! Library economics are incredibly simple. You own what you want to own, and borrow what you need

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Assuming you aren’t talking about consumable items, then the library would get more from manufacturing them. A library economy doesn’t mean we stop all production, we just produce what’s needed and distribute them to libraries. This has major advantages, like essentially eliminating waste from overproduction, permanently ending planned obsolescence and the incentive to create more durable items, fosters community cohesion, and a lot more. Here’s a more thorough introduction to the topic through the lens of political anarchism, though it could exist in any leftist economy

          • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m really having a hard time differentiating this from the current system… You can already own things and already rent things, and already check things out from libraries. Is it about spreading the cost of having/maintaining those items across everyone instead of just the ones using them like in a rental system?

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The reason it’s different is because it replaces the other 2 methods serving capital with the 1 option that serves the community. It’s more like a store where you don’t buy anything, but then give those items to the community when you no longer need them. Buy? Rent? Why do those things when you could borrow from the community, help improve it, and then return it to the community? Having a picnic next to the lake? Borrow a cooler for a day! Need to drive across the country? Borrow an electric car for a year! Need something at all times, like a cellphone or a washing machine? Borrow it indefinitely!

              Instead of overproducing items at the expense of killing us all in climate crisis, a library economy produces what’s necessary and lets the people decide what’s best for the items through direct democracy and electing library stewards to handle the operation of the library. Nothing is commoditized, nothing prevents you from owning things, and nothing prevents you from building your own things. It incentivizes highly durable, repairable items. It creates the foundation for mutualism and helping each other. Most importantly to me, it creates a society where we no longer have to consider money while also enriching our lives.

        • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Nederlands
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          No place has a fully free economy - for good reason. Such a place would have no labour condition laws, no social security, no pensions, no free healthcare, etc.

          Every economy to an extent already is planned. They do not fail per se.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There have been failures, yes. However, look at any company, especially the megacorporations like Walmart. They all have planned economies. Walmart IT isn’t placing contract bids with the Walmart marketing department, they just help the marketing department when needed. The meat department isn’t shopping around for cheaper suppliers, they get meat from the logistics network Walmart controls. The only example of a free market business I know of is Sears, which was already sinking. The free market idea from the CEO was catastrophic and sunk the company in under a year. The IT department needed to turn a profit, so their prices were high. When the marketing department needed IT and Sears IT placed a bid, it was higher than contracted IT so the marketing department didn’t work internally and ended up costing the company massive amounts of money.

          There are also successful planned economies in existence right now; Cuba is thriving in spite of the economic sactions by the US, and Vietnam didn’t stop being communist after the war with the Khmer Rouge. This also excludes other realities, like what constitutes the failure of a country? Is it a failure of a planned economy, or is it a failure of government? If it’s a failure of the economic system, then why aren’t failing/failed capitalist nations attributed to capitalism?

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Companies fail all the time and it is critical to ensure that bad systems are not allowed to continue. A government doesn’t fail. It’s issues are enabled to continue unabated.

            The ultimate issue with a centrally planned economy is not environmental though. It is putting additional power into the hands of a majority which gives minorities no recourse. At least in a capitalist country minorities can form their own communities and local economies. If the majority wants to allocate food and resources to the majority in a centrally planned system, the minorities starve. Sure, there are still issues in capitalist systems with regulations targeting minorities and the stealing of resources like Tulsa but there’s no recourse at all in a centrally planned one.

            Vietnam transitioned from central planning before even the Soviet Union.

            Are you really sure Cuba is the best example right now? Go look into how they are doing and get back to me. I won’t claim that a centrally planned economy cannot be efficient when the leadership places great emphasis on it. Cuba has some very efficiently run state programs. They are also unfortunately not very nimble.

            Central planning can make for some oppressive and robust environmentalism. We see that in Cuba. It also works the other way. What makes you think that after the revolution you will be the one making the decisions and the same grifters won’t take part in that system for their own benefit?

            What happens when the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the world? Does the majority in any country really care about the environment over jobs and prosperity? How likely is this central plan to place a focus inherently on resource efficiency and actually be successful without an incentive when lives are on the line? We know from the few large centrally planned economies that they’ve largely failed at that task rather dramatically.

            All of this should not be weighed against hands-off capitalism but instead the modern liberal mixed system. Externalities are covered with regulations and government programs based on contracts and markets. That’s reformed capitalism.

            Reforms to socialist systems have not addressed the core issues of power imbalance but instead, allow corporations as long as they align with the efforts of the state and the majority. That’s literally economic fascism and comes with all its own issues.

            There’s a lot more that can be covered here including numbers that support these narratives but there’s a reason the Western left shifted from a revolution to a reform mindset in the 1960s and it largely follows the above logic.

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It sounds like you’re more interested in the few from the majority deciding everything on behalf of the minority. It feels like you understand the problem with our bourgeois democracy, but use it as a bludgeon to attack true democracy. We can decide to elevate the voices of minorities. We don’t have to perfectly model our planned economy based on previous attempts, instead we can create our own system based on our culture and collective experiences. One of the huge failures of the USSR was not ensuring people that identify as kazakhs were part of the governing body of Kazakhstan. We don’t have to repeat mistakes, we can choose to learn from them. I imagine elected reps from unionized ethnic groups to help make guiding principles for governing the commons by the commons. It may work, it may not. I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try.

              • galloog1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s literally nothing inherent to a socialist system that makes a society less racist. You are giving the majority more power over vulnerable groups though. You can say that sounds like I’m defending the rich but I never said that. Sure we can learn from it. We can eliminate majority power over capital control. The CCP argued that the USSR had strayed from the true intent of Lenin’s Communism. It got them famine and they reverted. Yes, Lenin argued that it was more an approach than a set system. The issue with that is what the proposed approach is inherently oppressive. Lenin himself argued that dissent could not be allowed to exist because it would undermine the system.

                Your argument that we can at least try ignores consequences that we’ve seen before. We also could try an ethnostate. That would provide the unity required. Those pesky minorities keep getting in the way of progress. How dare they want to keep the value of their labor. We could try shooting ourselves in the foot through radical change to try an experiment that could just as easily be formed internal to the system.

                There’s nothing stopping left systems for existing within western societies. The corporate structure actually allows for it depending on how you write the founding documents. Co-ops succeed all the time and they fail all the time. Nonprofits do a lot of the same. When these systems are not at a government level, when the trust fails and the system collapses it does not take everything down with it.

                It’s really difficult for a government system supporting capitalism to break down because it doesn’t provide anything inherently required to live. In a command economy, when the trust is broken, the system breaks down. When the system breaks down, the people go to other systems for their needs. Then start the power struggles and the death. It’s authoritarian and unstable by it’s very nature and it has a tendency to become more authoritarian and consolidated as time goes on due to lessons learned.

                Why would you knowingly choose this path when reform and regulations are an option? What is different about your approach from China or the USSR other than you’ll just attempt it better or be more forceful in pushing your ideal code of ethics?

                • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Bro, you’re using way too many words to say that you benefit from the status quo and don’t want to change things too much because you’re afraid that it might impact your personal comfort. You want to move incrementally into a planned economy just in case, and I get that. I understand where that fear comes from. But the time for incremental change was 50 years ago, the current climate crisis demands we change now or face extinction.

                  I understand that socialism and planned economies don’t fix issues of racial and ethnic hate. It’s the responsibility of socialists and other leftists to have a healthy dose of intersectionality when talking about creating political systems, because discussing how to make sure minorities aren’t negatively impacted is essential to the system succeeding.

                  I’m actually kinda offended by your suggestion that “we should try something else when creating a socialist society to ensure minorities are heard” is equivalent to an ethnostate. Actually what the fuck. That’s a disgusting comparison and I don’t understand at all how you decided they were equivalent.

                  There is stopping something from creating socialism in the status quo, and it’s called capitalism. Capitalism has, does, and will continue to fight anything that challenges the status quo. The ideal for capitalists is to recreate a feudal society, child labor and all. You talk about instability within former socialist nations, but never draw the line towards the endless attacks placed on those countries by the imperial core. Most recent example? Zunzuneo, an astroturf social media site created by USAID as a CIA front to destablize Cuba. There’s also the 1990 US Appropriations Act, which caused Yugoslavia to collapse into reactionary ethnic hate that resulted in the Bosnian genocide. You point to failures of socialism as if it’s a fundamental flaw, but never examine the reasons for why those nations failed. If you did, you’d see attacks from the imperial core as well as mistakes from the local government being the point of failure, not socialism.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SattaRIP@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Except that some of the absolute worst ecological tragedies in the modern world were done in socialist systems

          The Dust Bowl. Exxon Valdez. Deepwater Horizon.

          • endlessloop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think this goes back to my original question, obviously capitalism has had it’s disasters, that much is known, but at the same time you have disasters like Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Dzerzhinsk. I understand the USSR was not the ideal communist/socialist system, but it’s the most apparent we have (going back to my original question, I think?). I just feel like statements in OP are not the right rallying call if actual change is desired, as it implies we just need to shift to our current implementations of other systems. I think the only real answer, like I mentioned in other comments is to bypass current systems and investigate new options.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re suggesting heavy regulation of social and economic systems which is the entire point of socialism. You say socialism doesn’t work, but that is exactly what you’re describing.

          And capitalism does not want to exist in a society of international regulation. Those concepts are at odds with one another.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The pure socialism people keep asking for hasn’t worked. It’s been taken over and corrupted throughout history.

            Capitalism does not want socialist policies, but you can still force it to apply them. Because it’s not a god, a person, an all encompassing system, any of that. It’s a tool just like socialism should be treated.

        • If you like markets you might be more interested in learning about democratic market socialist countries and how they operate. The Nordics lean in that direction - after all, social democracy spawned out of orthodox marxism. The core idea in OG Nordic economics is simple: more democracy. You don’t need a min. wage, let unions bargain for their salaries, which is why McDonalds famously pays such a massive min. wage in Denmark. Fund and support democratically owned housing (housing coops, of which 20% of Norway resides in and still growing vs pop. growth despite no more gov. funding) or democratically run grocery stores (Finland has the highest density of consumer coops in the world) - housing coops usually have democratically agreed policies like not being able to treat your property like a commodity/investment by primarily renting it out (thus not contributing as much to rising housing prices), and consumer coops have been at the forefront of more environmentally and labour friendly behaviour. All the Nordics have worker board representation - workers make up a percentage of the board and help steer the company. There’s also the social wealth funds in Norway that give the government the power to guide corporations towards more ethical behaviour by owning significant amounts of shares in businesses, both domestically and internationally - although some argue Norway could learn from the Alaska SWF which pays its citizens dividends from the SWF. All of this builds towards economic democracy, or more commonly known as “socialism”, but in a way that has had great success. They’ve reeled some of those things back in recent decades, and the negative effects are clear to see - Norway stopping its funding of housing coops has meant a growing housing crisis much like the rest of Europe (with few exceptions, like Vienna (Austria) and Finland where socialised housing plays a bigger role).

        • SattaRIP@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the thing, you can never reach a full socialist system in the anarchist sense. Anything short is authoritarianism and that is what you propose we move towards. I am not disagreeing with you but you are missing the fact that those examples were absolutely trying and did try to get there.

            • SattaRIP@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anarchism is fundamentally anti authoritarian so I don’t see how you think I’m proposing that.

              The existence of a state and communism are an oxymoron. How can there be equality when there’s still a hierarchy? These nations were also nationalist, which is also at odds with communism. I get how it appears they tried and failed, as did other countries, but there attempts were just for show and don’t indicate that communism is impossible. In fact, humans have lived under what Marx called (though I don’t like the term) “primitive communism” since we first started walking on two feet.
              But that being said, I have no idea how anarchism would work on a large scale like with the population of a city.

              This is where I get really doomer and say my expectation is that as global warming and wars and famine and disease and authoritarian governments get worse the only places left that you can be free will be anarcho communes. Such a thing is possible in our modern day. Zapatista in Mexico and Rojava in Syria have achieved it as far as I can tell, but I have yet to look into how those communities are run. Rojava I know its situation is far from ideal with them having to make deals with devils, like to give America oil rights. Living in Canada myself I can find a comnune on ic.org to join. Though admittedly I haven’t looked into that past skimming their website.

              • galloog1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, I’ve been to one of the ones you mention and it’s largely corporate. I’m not sure what you’re expecting out of geopolitics. Social science says that trust breaks down inherently with organizations larger than about 300 people. You can argue against pretty structures all you want but all you end up is at the whim of those that prepare for them. Go be in a commune. See what it’s like. I mean that wholeheartedly. There’s nothing sustainable about it but it is an interesting experience.

      • endlessloop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • subarctictundra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.