3 ms·

I'm an anarchist so I'm inclined to agree with you about state power - but in terms of relative goodness, a social democracy is demonstrably better than a neoli

I'm an anarchist so I'm inclined to agree with you about state power - but in terms of relative goodness, a social democracy is demonstrably better than a neoliberal state. I can say that from experience of Conservative rule in the UK - essential public services just get worse and the savings are collected in the pockets of the already-wealthy. I do agree about becoming multiplanetary too, but if we're talking about existential risk then climate change is the most urgent one and we need state power and institutional change to avert that one.

nickpp 5y ago
Don't judge governing systems using a small number of countries, try to look at more. For example, with their work ethic maybe Nordics can arguably make Social Democracy work, but would it work in say Bulgaria? The only way to solve climate change is through technological evolution. I see almost zero progress with policy changes. BTW, we wouldn't even be in this mess if would've completed the previous energy tech transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear as planned. What stopped us? Politics.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  You need a taxable base to implement social democracy - so yeah you'd need a functioning economy in order to fund social services, and Bulgaria is, AFAIK, pretty corrupt. But solving corruption is a political issue. We'd also need to move off of ICE cars, and it was the car industry that tried to suppress that. Also the fossil fuel industry that puts out propaganda against new forms of energy - capital and the state are in alliance. Some parties can be better (left wing ones) but there's a ton of propaganda against them by corporations too.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    I lived under communism so please don't tell me about left-wing parties. Not that I find other-wing parties that much better, but leftists have destroyed countries. Politicians are by definition corruptible - that is why they are there. They failed to succeed through merit in the free market so politics is their last resort. That is why power to the State and politicians means yielding to corruption. The biggest opponents to nuclear were not corporations but parties: greens and ecologists. Ideologists and luddites. We are living the world the anti-nukes protests of the 60's built.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Yeah I don't consider Marxist-Leninists to be part of the left wing - I know they declare themselves to be, but in reality they're just petty tyrants who want to dominate others. By left wing parties I mean labour, green and democratic socialist parties. Politicians are corruptible, but the free market actively promotes corruption - when the only motive is profit, morality goes out the window in favour of the dollar. As I said I'd rather we had neither, but between the two only politics has the possibility of significant change in any direction that isn't inherently profitable.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        > when the only motive is profit Profit is the only motive for everyone, all the time, no matter what. The only difference is that in a free market that motivation is aligned with societal goals and it is in the open, a game with rules and laws. Free markets allow you to make a profit and keep it, legally. Without free markets, the deals are made in power and influence, in fiefs and networks. Leftist politics are not only ipocrit (no left politician cares for "the poor") but also feudalistic and corrupt by default, from definition, because that is the only way to make a profit in such a sistem.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        That's quite the negative view of humanity. People only care about profit? I care about the wellbeing of all people, and I think most people do, they just have little ability to help others because they are atomised as individuals with little power under capitalism. A society where everybody only cares about personal gain is a society of sociopaths - granted, that's the sociological influence of neoliberalism, so you can see in more neoliberal communities that people are more greedy and materialistic, but that's not an essential trait of human beings; just experience more communal cultures or groups, or check out historical social structures. The only reason many people are profit-oriented now is because they're pushed to be so under capitalism.
        nickpp 5y ago

nickpp 5y ago

Don't judge governing systems using a small number of countries, try to look at more. For example, with their work ethic maybe Nordics can arguably make Social Democracy work, but would it work in say Bulgaria? The only way to solve climate change is through technological evolution. I see almost zero progress with policy changes. BTW, we wouldn't even be in this mess if would've completed the previous energy tech transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear as planned. What stopped us? Politics.

beaconstudios 5y ago
You need a taxable base to implement social democracy - so yeah you'd need a functioning economy in order to fund social services, and Bulgaria is, AFAIK, pretty corrupt. But solving corruption is a political issue. We'd also need to move off of ICE cars, and it was the car industry that tried to suppress that. Also the fossil fuel industry that puts out propaganda against new forms of energy - capital and the state are in alliance. Some parties can be better (left wing ones) but there's a ton of propaganda against them by corporations too.
- nickpp 5y ago
  I lived under communism so please don't tell me about left-wing parties. Not that I find other-wing parties that much better, but leftists have destroyed countries. Politicians are by definition corruptible - that is why they are there. They failed to succeed through merit in the free market so politics is their last resort. That is why power to the State and politicians means yielding to corruption. The biggest opponents to nuclear were not corporations but parties: greens and ecologists. Ideologists and luddites. We are living the world the anti-nukes protests of the 60's built.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Yeah I don't consider Marxist-Leninists to be part of the left wing - I know they declare themselves to be, but in reality they're just petty tyrants who want to dominate others. By left wing parties I mean labour, green and democratic socialist parties. Politicians are corruptible, but the free market actively promotes corruption - when the only motive is profit, morality goes out the window in favour of the dollar. As I said I'd rather we had neither, but between the two only politics has the possibility of significant change in any direction that isn't inherently profitable.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      > when the only motive is profit Profit is the only motive for everyone, all the time, no matter what. The only difference is that in a free market that motivation is aligned with societal goals and it is in the open, a game with rules and laws. Free markets allow you to make a profit and keep it, legally. Without free markets, the deals are made in power and influence, in fiefs and networks. Leftist politics are not only ipocrit (no left politician cares for "the poor") but also feudalistic and corrupt by default, from definition, because that is the only way to make a profit in such a sistem.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        That's quite the negative view of humanity. People only care about profit? I care about the wellbeing of all people, and I think most people do, they just have little ability to help others because they are atomised as individuals with little power under capitalism. A society where everybody only cares about personal gain is a society of sociopaths - granted, that's the sociological influence of neoliberalism, so you can see in more neoliberal communities that people are more greedy and materialistic, but that's not an essential trait of human beings; just experience more communal cultures or groups, or check out historical social structures. The only reason many people are profit-oriented now is because they're pushed to be so under capitalism.
        nickpp 5y ago