5 ms·

I would suggest you read up on the history of both communism and socialism and their relationship with pollution and their environment. In a capitalist systems

I would suggest you read up on the history of both communism and socialism and their relationship with pollution and their environment. In a capitalist systems at least there are incentives to get businesses to create better systems over time, that doesn't exist in any other system.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> their relationship with pollution and their environment turns out they had a pretty marginal role in it, compared to the grand total, except maybe the first generation of nuclear weapons USSR produced, that were sealed off and very hard, if not impossible, to defuse. Anyway communism and socialism are not exactly the same thing, you can't put them together in the same basket and can't generalize. Communism in Italy was not the same as communism in Cuba which was not the same as communism in East Germany which was not the same as communism in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Congo etc > In a capitalist systems at least there are incentives to get businesses to create better systems over time I would gladly see some proof that one does produce the incentive (and the incentive produces a radical change for the better) while the other doesn't. My opinion is that socialism does not scale too well when the community becomes too big, but capitalism produces inherently more distortions and inequalities that need to be addressed in a never ending vice cycle of crisis that hit hard the poor and virtually spares the wealthy. Anyway my comment was more on the line of "socialism is not what people usually think it is or associate it with in the USA (or the west)" America called it a socialist system because it wanted to defame and demonize socialism. The Soviet Union called their government socialist because that was a popular and celebrated term in Europe, despite totalitarian control having nothing to do with true, democratic socialism (where workers are also the owners and have democratic control over their workplace and government). As Noam Chomsky pointed out, it was state capitalism run by a fascist regime, fascists that when they ruled non so-caledd socialist countries, the west, but I should more correctly say the USA and the UK, admired because in their view (and the propaganda) they defeated socialism and communism. In truth the people of the Soviet Union had no control over the means of production or control over their lives and were essentially slaves. It would be the same as if Stalin came to power in America, created a fascist police state, used coercive force to protect criminal banks, evicted people unjustly from their homes, suppressed protests and broke up unions, then lavished massive subsidies on big companies, gave tax breaks to the rich, allowed large corporations to pay nothing in taxes while cutting programs to help the poor, rigged all their elections with the aid of corporate media, and then proudly called this a "free-market capitalist and democratic system that represents the will of the people." In other words, just because politicians often appropriate popular words for their own twisted means, that doesn't make what they say true. To me, an Italian that looks at the American politics from afar, sounds not dissimilar to Trump's manifesto and some parts not too far from what we associate the USA with here, today.
- ThomPete 3y ago
  They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west. But relatively compared to the west they were absolute swine and had no accountability towards their population. The proof is in the very article we are discussing here. This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union. You are trying to come up with some redefinition of terms. We all know what communism is, we know what socialism is, we know what capitalism is, we even know what social democratic nations look like (Grew up in one) we also know that most western countries are mixed economies. I am not sure why you are trying to make up some argument there. But it all boils down to accountability. In a system where the government is in control of the market it has less incentives as there is nothing that punishes them where as in a system where the companies is accountable to their citizens and then citizens are backed by the government there is a much better incentive structure. Furthermore in market driven systems the companies have an incentive in improving their product on all it's axis as that improves not only their bottom line but also their ability to compete with others. Noan Chomsky lived in academia his whole life and never had to actually be accountable to any of the many wrong things he claimed.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west Yep, exactly, they had a marginal role. > This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union Those are not socialist countries though, just plain old dictatorships. It would also not happen in Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain or any other fascist dictatorship supported by the US. > We all know what communism is, we know what socialism is My point: I don't think most on HN do. > I am not sure why you are trying to make up some argument there. Because socialism is not what the first comment was implying it is. And socialism doesn't mean State capitalism USSR style. What is the role of the Arab countries in the World's pollution? Are they not capitalist? What is the role of the capitalistic countries such as the USA in the World's pollution? Are they not capitalist too??? The argument presented is a fallacy, not supported by facts and it does not even present the argument correctly. To be perfectly clear > you live in a capitalist society not some socialist nightmare. Giving it to the government would be much much much worse. That whole sentence is one big straw man. - The opposite of capitalist society is not "some socialist nightmare" - a capitalist society is not the opposite of a nightmare - socialist doesn't mean "giving it to the government" - giving it to the government is not proven to be worse, it is in fact the opposite, we are specifically commenting on "3M knew its chemicals were harmful decades ago, but didn't tell the public". Because the public, the government, is the one in charge of not letting these kinds of things happen. This story is proof against the private sector, not the opposite, which, again, is a "No true Scotsman" at this point. To be even more clear, no government would kill its people to profit and even if they did, sooner or later the people would overthrown it. But a private company will without doubt do it, using every trick in the book to cover up their responsibilities, because they do not respond to the people. We have tons of evidence in support of the thesis. And that's why we have laws to avoid it and agencies devoted to controlling that nothing like that happens. Unfortunately they can be powerless against corporations with huge budgets and reach. > Noan Chomsky lived in academia This is called ad hominem. Noam Chomsky is a highly respected researcher, you should disprove his works, which are public and available to everyone BTW, if you really believe he's wrong, not attack the person.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago

> their relationship with pollution and their environment turns out they had a pretty marginal role in it, compared to the grand total, except maybe the first generation of nuclear weapons USSR produced, that were sealed off and very hard, if not impossible, to defuse. Anyway communism and socialism are not exactly the same thing, you can't put them together in the same basket and can't generalize. Communism in Italy was not the same as communism in Cuba which was not the same as communism in East Germany which was not the same as communism in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Congo etc > In a capitalist systems at least there are incentives to get businesses to create better systems over time I would gladly see some proof that one does produce the incentive (and the incentive produces a radical change for the better) while the other doesn't. My opinion is that socialism does not scale too well when the community becomes too big, but capitalism produces inherently more distortions and inequalities that need to be addressed in a never ending vice cycle of crisis that hit hard the poor and virtually spares the wealthy. Anyway my comment was more on the line of "socialism is not what people usually think it is or associate it with in the USA (or the west)" America called it a socialist system because it wanted to defame and demonize socialism. The Soviet Union called their government socialist because that was a popular and celebrated term in Europe, despite totalitarian control having nothing to do with true, democratic socialism (where workers are also the owners and have democratic control over their workplace and government). As Noam Chomsky pointed out, it was state capitalism run by a fascist regime, fascists that when they ruled non so-caledd socialist countries, the west, but I should more correctly say the USA and the UK, admired because in their view (and the propaganda) they defeated socialism and communism. In truth the people of the Soviet Union had no control over the means of production or control over their lives and were essentially slaves. It would be the same as if Stalin came to power in America, created a fascist police state, used coercive force to protect criminal banks, evicted people unjustly from their homes, suppressed protests and broke up unions, then lavished massive subsidies on big companies, gave tax breaks to the rich, allowed large corporations to pay nothing in taxes while cutting programs to help the poor, rigged all their elections with the aid of corporate media, and then proudly called this a "free-market capitalist and democratic system that represents the will of the people." In other words, just because politicians often appropriate popular words for their own twisted means, that doesn't make what they say true. To me, an Italian that looks at the American politics from afar, sounds not dissimilar to Trump's manifesto and some parts not too far from what we associate the USA with here, today.

ThomPete 3y ago
They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west. But relatively compared to the west they were absolute swine and had no accountability towards their population. The proof is in the very article we are discussing here. This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union. You are trying to come up with some redefinition of terms. We all know what communism is, we know what socialism is, we know what capitalism is, we even know what social democratic nations look like (Grew up in one) we also know that most western countries are mixed economies. I am not sure why you are trying to make up some argument there. But it all boils down to accountability. In a system where the government is in control of the market it has less incentives as there is nothing that punishes them where as in a system where the companies is accountable to their citizens and then citizens are backed by the government there is a much better incentive structure. Furthermore in market driven systems the companies have an incentive in improving their product on all it's axis as that improves not only their bottom line but also their ability to compete with others. Noan Chomsky lived in academia his whole life and never had to actually be accountable to any of the many wrong things he claimed.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west Yep, exactly, they had a marginal role. > This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union Those are not socialist countries though, just plain old dictatorships. It would also not happen in Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain or any other fascist dictatorship supported by the US. > We all know what communism is, we know what socialism is My point: I don't think most on HN do. > I am not sure why you are trying to make up some argument there. Because socialism is not what the first comment was implying it is. And socialism doesn't mean State capitalism USSR style. What is the role of the Arab countries in the World's pollution? Are they not capitalist? What is the role of the capitalistic countries such as the USA in the World's pollution? Are they not capitalist too??? The argument presented is a fallacy, not supported by facts and it does not even present the argument correctly. To be perfectly clear > you live in a capitalist society not some socialist nightmare. Giving it to the government would be much much much worse. That whole sentence is one big straw man. - The opposite of capitalist society is not "some socialist nightmare" - a capitalist society is not the opposite of a nightmare - socialist doesn't mean "giving it to the government" - giving it to the government is not proven to be worse, it is in fact the opposite, we are specifically commenting on "3M knew its chemicals were harmful decades ago, but didn't tell the public". Because the public, the government, is the one in charge of not letting these kinds of things happen. This story is proof against the private sector, not the opposite, which, again, is a "No true Scotsman" at this point. To be even more clear, no government would kill its people to profit and even if they did, sooner or later the people would overthrown it. But a private company will without doubt do it, using every trick in the book to cover up their responsibilities, because they do not respond to the people. We have tons of evidence in support of the thesis. And that's why we have laws to avoid it and agencies devoted to controlling that nothing like that happens. Unfortunately they can be powerless against corporations with huge budgets and reach. > Noan Chomsky lived in academia This is called ad hominem. Noam Chomsky is a highly respected researcher, you should disprove his works, which are public and available to everyone BTW, if you really believe he's wrong, not attack the person.