5 ms·

Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.

by poncho_romero 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago
The parent did: "you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world"
- poncho_romero 3y ago
  Fair enough. Still, I would disagree. Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Capitalism has endured great challenges for much longer, and despite increasing discontent with the system in many areas of the world, doesn’t appear likely to go anywhere. If that’s the case, the prodigious output of environmental harm capitalism generates won’t go anywhere either. Green energy and green technology won’t stop all instances of microplastics polluting our rivers or junk toys collecting in landfills.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited I recall reading after the USSR collapsed that Poland was the most polluted country in the world. All due to the rush to industrialize and to heck with the environment. Chernobyl is another case about communism giving short shrift to environmental considerations.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
      Of course one could argue that that this wasn’t the fault of socialism, but rather a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else. Lest we forget when that paragon of free market capitalism, the United States, prior to the creation of the EPA and its glorious burning Cuyahoga River. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else. Communist governments simply have to, as starving people tend to revolt. Free market economies generated enough surplus that they can afford to be clean. Communist economies cannot even feed themselves.
        jonathankoren 3y ago
        So you agree. A robust government regulatory agencies with effective enforcement is required to ensure the protection of the environment and workers' safety and dignity. I'm glad we see that the inevitable outcome of free market deregulation is destruction.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        Do you think communist industry has a better track record of safety? BTW, dignity comes from within. It is not imposed by external influences. The power the workers have in a free market is the power to say "no" and walk away.
        jonathankoren 3y ago
        Is there a communist government with a robust worker and environmental safety regime? None I’m aware of. Guess what? The free market didn’t provide one either. It doesn’t actually provide a lot of things needed for a robust society. It’s almost as if Wall Streets communism vs capitalism is a giant canard to distract from very basic, proven, and effective socioeconomic reforms.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Look at the sky in any given photograph of china.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      China turned away from communism a couple decades ago.
      - throwawaymaths 3y ago
        It's turning back.
- Voultapher 3y ago
  Today's definition of wealth is rooted in resource extraction and energy use. Name me a system that has proven itself more effective at growing this sort of wealth than democracy plus capitalism. Ecosphere destruction is tied to that sort of wealth https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. You grow one, you grow the other.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    > Today's definition of wealth is rooted in resource extraction and energy use. That's not true, unless in very basic technical sense - like, we need energy to exist, turn on our computers, etc. But resource extraction and energy production is not the dominating source of wealth for many years now. Look at the current market's magnificent seven: Alphabet (GOOGL; GOOG), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT), NVIDIA (NVDA), and Tesla (TSLA). Not a single of them does resource extraction or sells energy. It's not true socially either. If someone wants to get rich, they go into finance, high tech, entertainment maybe. Not in oil prospecting or gold digging (not that there aren't money in it - there are, but it's not what the society considers to be a lucrative business anymore). It's not 1849 now.

Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.

WalterBright 3y ago

The parent did: "you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world"

poncho_romero 3y ago
Fair enough. Still, I would disagree. Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Capitalism has endured great challenges for much longer, and despite increasing discontent with the system in many areas of the world, doesn’t appear likely to go anywhere. If that’s the case, the prodigious output of environmental harm capitalism generates won’t go anywhere either. Green energy and green technology won’t stop all instances of microplastics polluting our rivers or junk toys collecting in landfills.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited I recall reading after the USSR collapsed that Poland was the most polluted country in the world. All due to the rush to industrialize and to heck with the environment. Chernobyl is another case about communism giving short shrift to environmental considerations.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    Of course one could argue that that this wasn’t the fault of socialism, but rather a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else. Lest we forget when that paragon of free market capitalism, the United States, prior to the creation of the EPA and its glorious burning Cuyahoga River. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else. Communist governments simply have to, as starving people tend to revolt. Free market economies generated enough surplus that they can afford to be clean. Communist economies cannot even feed themselves.
      - jonathankoren 3y ago
        So you agree. A robust government regulatory agencies with effective enforcement is required to ensure the protection of the environment and workers' safety and dignity. I'm glad we see that the inevitable outcome of free market deregulation is destruction.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        Do you think communist industry has a better track record of safety? BTW, dignity comes from within. It is not imposed by external influences. The power the workers have in a free market is the power to say "no" and walk away.
        jonathankoren 3y ago
        Is there a communist government with a robust worker and environmental safety regime? None I’m aware of. Guess what? The free market didn’t provide one either. It doesn’t actually provide a lot of things needed for a robust society. It’s almost as if Wall Streets communism vs capitalism is a giant canard to distract from very basic, proven, and effective socioeconomic reforms.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Look at the sky in any given photograph of china.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    China turned away from communism a couple decades ago.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      It's turning back.
Voultapher 3y ago
Today's definition of wealth is rooted in resource extraction and energy use. Name me a system that has proven itself more effective at growing this sort of wealth than democracy plus capitalism. Ecosphere destruction is tied to that sort of wealth https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. You grow one, you grow the other.
- smsm42 3y ago
  > Today's definition of wealth is rooted in resource extraction and energy use. That's not true, unless in very basic technical sense - like, we need energy to exist, turn on our computers, etc. But resource extraction and energy production is not the dominating source of wealth for many years now. Look at the current market's magnificent seven: Alphabet (GOOGL; GOOG), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT), NVIDIA (NVDA), and Tesla (TSLA). Not a single of them does resource extraction or sells energy. It's not true socially either. If someone wants to get rich, they go into finance, high tech, entertainment maybe. Not in oil prospecting or gold digging (not that there aren't money in it - there are, but it's not what the society considers to be a lucrative business anymore). It's not 1849 now.