this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
89 points (95.9% liked)
The Climate Crisis
1333 readers
1 users here now
The impacts and solutions of the Climate Crisis
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
People confuse the richest 1% of America and the richest 1% of the world. The former is multimillionnaires, the latter is like, software engineers in America. This article concerns the latter.
The US is, give or take, 4% of the global population. So, the top income quintile ($153,000/yr and above) brings you to around 1% of the global population, with room for well-off people in other countries.
In case your math skills are rusty, the global 1% is 80 million people. That's the same size as Germany, the country. Yes it includes oil barons, multinational CEOs, and whatnot, but also like, professionals in expensive cost-of-living areas like Californian software engineers.
I'm fine with pushing anything within a 100km radius around San Francisco into the ocean. Who's free next tuesday?
These people run and own the largest polluting inustries in the world, removing them does not solve the problem. We must strip them of their power and additionally remove their destructive legacies.
The soviet union eliminated capitalism and I'll say their environmental record was pretty awful.
not as awful as countries like amerikkka, and soviet environmental protection laws were very strong at the start and they were diluted over time by revisionists after the death of Stalin. But even IF the USSR had not been better it is a mistake of the past, and climate change and environmental preservation and restoration is central to every leftist platform, so like wtf is ur point. Like even IF u werent just outright factually wrong what is ur point "we cant fix anything because someone in the past failed"?
Okay, and replace it with what, exactly?
What do you mean 'replace them with what'? What vital role do you think they're playing now?
They're nothing but parasites.
You said replacing "capitalism," okay, with what? Other have responded with their take, already. So you do not have to.
Initially socialism, and then communism in the long run. The only sane approach is to have worker ownership of the means of production.
Is there an example in history where this has attempted and implemented as such and not devolved into straight up persecusion, authoritarianism, cult of personally or tens+ of millions dead? And general lower standards of living to most, outside the party or political class like the Politburo? Could not find any. The Nordics and Canada are capitalistic with some social services. They seem to have a good valance but that is only because the USA military protects them out of geopolitical interests.
I am all good with say, limiting wealth of the rich, they can be rich but not stupifyingly rich and some socialised healthcare and the like. Coming from a third world, I have seen that abolishing private property is just oppression with extra steps, overtime. Most 1st world people have no idea of what they are asking and of how it devolves, in practice.
In your mind, how would workers "own" the means of production? Shares? Votes?
Is there an example in history where this has attempted and implemented as such and not devolved into straight up persecusion, authoritarianism, cult of personally or tens+ of millions dead?
That's literally every single example in the real world example of communist revolutions. Standard of living improves for the majority as people get jobs, education, food and housing as a right. It's incredible that people continue to repeat these tropes that have been debunked many times without a hint of embarrassment.
Could not find any.
Then you obviously haven't bothered actually looking.
The Nordics and Canada are capitalistic with some social services. They seem to have a good valance but that is only because the USA military protects them out of geopolitical interests.
Not only is this blatantly false, but the meager standard of living the working majority in these countries enjoys is built on brutal colonialism and exploitation of the global majority.
In your mind, how would workers “own” the means of production? Shares? Votes?
In my mind, the workers would own the means of production through a combination of state owned enterprise and cooperative ownership of the private businesses. This is not rocket science. How cooperatives and state owned enterprise work in practice is well documented.
They are tropes because they literally happened. How many millions died due to famines or ideological persecutions say, Russia, China or Khmer Rouge? Please, provide a number.
Are you going to claim that current China is not a surveillance State, on top of that? With property that can only be owned for 50 years and homeless outside main cities? I mean, I could go on and on, video does exist of this. The point is that I have looked. To say that some of these regimes did not have at least some positives is silly, simply put, the positives in most cases do not outweigh the oppressive, propaganda State negatives.
Dude, I lived in Canada, know people in the Nordics, I know what I am talking about. You are wrong. Saying it is "false" does not cancel reality. Most Canadians enjoy a standard of living higher than 90% of the rest of the world in the aggregate. I lived in a major city and got tired of the cosmopolitan living and moved a small city, I look into a river every morning. I am not rich, albeit a bit lucky.
In general, the Nordics have it better. You should go visit Iceland, albeit it is expensive, but at least you are not going to risk getting robbed as you would in many parts of Mexico or Honduras. Colonialism is a silly claim, all human beings, and most civilizations have done this since the beginning of time, just colonizing each other over resources. You think the while folk invented this? It has been done by all, often brutally. Did you think the Mongols, the British of the Muslims during the early Islamic conquests got where they get through hugs and kisses? Alexander the Great got to India by whispering sweet nothings into the armies they destroyed along the way? Surely. Africa and the Americas were killing each other all the time and had slaves before any white person got there. Who do you think sold black people to the Europeans? Other black people.
My point is that the Nordic countries can afford to have socialized services because they enjoy the protection of USA imperialistic or militaristic hegemony. Never said that was a good thing, nevertheless, that is just the current reality. They do not have to worry about paying for large standing armies because the USA would not allow it. Since it is simply not in their best geopolitical interest. Same reason why Costa Rica or Panama do not need large armies, either.
In a true Communist state, as in like what Stalin wanted and aimed for, there was no room for private enterprise. Mao and current China has their fingers into all so-called private companies. Not really private, really. What if your name is Jack Ma, and are a full blown billionare, and get a bit lippy in the wrong think, you just disappear for 3 months to be, straighten out. So, not sure if that is really "private."
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64781986
Cooperatives operating in a capitalistic environment, is very different than one existing under a Marxist or Communistic one. I mean, I cannot believe that this has to be stated. So, no, your answer is as vague as every other communist/marxist/socialist/etc that I have honestly asked, who themselves usually throw all the tropes of some type of communist paradise that has never existed in the form they suggest, while ignoring major aspects of history, the human condition and how said humans actually work and exist because we are all very different people. With different abilities, and qualities and many do not like to play communism or Marxism. I mean, Marxist and more specifically Leninists do know this, otherwise, they would not have invented the underhanded concept of Vanguard parties in order to manipulate the populace in a particular direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism
What is not rocket science is what has been done historically, and of how badly treated and persecuted people who did not want to LARP with their communist-minded citizens or who were found guilty of wrong-think. These stories can be found throughout most of the 20th century in Russia and Eastern Europe and, behind what we would call the iron curtain and China and elsewhere.
I was honestly asking a question, which you could have answered in good faith, rather than coming off defensively as if I had not done my homework. You do not know what I know, so you should perhaps not assume, friend. Keeps conversations better. Would you wager to try again?
They are tropes because imbeciles keep repeating them. Both Russia and China had massive famines happening before the revolution, and these famines were the very reason why revolutions happened. However, life expectancy rapidly improved after revolution both in Russia and China.
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5054/index1.html
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84b00274r000300150009-5
Between 1950 and 1980, China experienced the most rapid sustained increase in life expectancy of any population in documented global history. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25495509/
So right out of the gate we've already established that you're just regurgitating nonsense here, and spreading misinformation.
Are you going to claim that current China is not a surveillance State, on top of that?
Are you going to claim that Canada is not a surveillance State, on top of that?
With property that can only be owned for 50 years and homeless outside main cities?
The fact that people aren't allowed to hoard property is the very reason why 90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
Seems like a far better situation than we have in Canada to me.
Most Canadians enjoy a standard of living higher than 90% of the rest of the world in the aggregate.
Ah yes, a standard of living built on the genocide of the local population and brutal colonialism around the world. Go read up on what horrors Canada is responsible for in Africa as an example. Yet, despite that, over half the population in Canada is living on subsistence wages https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/more-than-half-of-canadians-200-away-or-less-from-not-being-able-to-pay-all-of-their-bills-1.6473939
In general, the Nordics have it better.
In general, Nordics are colonialist nations exploiting the global south. I guess people like you don't give a shit about the suffering that goes into propping up your life style. Fuck everyone else as long as you got yours.
Colonialism is a silly claim, all human beings, and most civilizations have done this since the beginning of time, just colonizing each other over resources.
That's the dumbest attempt to try and justify the fact that your lifestyle is built on repression and exploitation said without a hint of embarrassment.
My point is that the Nordic countries can afford to have socialized services because they enjoy the protection of USA imperialistic or militaristic hegemony.
They can afford it because US imperialism allows them to plunder the global south today at gunpoint.
My point is that the Nordic countries can afford to have socialized services because they enjoy the protection of USA imperialistic or militaristic hegemony.
LMFAO imagine thinking that's a bad thing.
Cooperatives operating in a capitalistic environment, is very different than one existing under a Marxist or Communistic one.
That's true, it's an inferior model to have cooperatives within the deplorable system of capitalism.
So, no, your answer is as vague as every other communist/marxist/socialist/etc that I have honestly asked, who themselves usually throw all the tropes of some type of communist paradise that has never existed in the form they suggest, while ignoring major aspects of history, the human condition and how said humans actually work and exist because we are all very different people. With different abilities, and qualities and many do not like to play communism or Marxism. I mean, Marxist and more specifically Leninists do know this, otherwise, they would not have invented the underhanded concept of Vanguard parties in order to manipulate the populace in a particular direction.
How to say you've never read a book in your life. Here are a couple of more books you'll never read that describe in detail the things you claim never existed.
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/130389319-this-soviet-world
- https://redletterspp.com/products/the-east-is-still-red
What is not rocket science is what has been done historically, and of how badly treated and persecuted people who did not want to LARP with their communist-minded citizens or who were found guilty of wrong-think. These stories can be found throughout most of the 20th century in Russia and Eastern Europe and, behind what we would call the iron curtain and China and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, far higher than China and on top of it practices literal slavery https://indi.ca/how-america-still-has-slavery/
I was honestly asking a question, which you could have answered in good faith, rather than coming off defensively as if I had not done my homework. You do not know what I know, so you should perhaps not assume, friend. Keeps conversations better. Would you wager to try again?
You ask a question in bad faith, and you've exposed yourself to be aggressively ignorant on a subject you're attempting to debate. The factually wrong statements you've made very clearly show what you don't know, and the fact that you have absolutely no interest in actually learning or understanding the subject. It's pretty obvious that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere as you'll just keep repeating the same talking points. You're not being very original here. All of you anticommunists use exact same script.
You replace billionares by splitting their billions and distributing them among the population. Nobody gets poor everyone gets richer simple as that.