5 ms·

but the activists don't care about climate change

Sakos 3y ago
You see the problem then.
lukan 3y ago
They care, but see "capitalism" as the root problem and revolution as the only solution. It is just, that their concepts of what comes next, are quite vague.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rancour 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      Source: the 20th century and literally any history book
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Source: open a book on life in communism/USSR, or just look at Eastern Europe pre-1990 versus today.
  - sgift 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Excuse my ignorance of someone who grew up in an ex-commie country, but what were the merits of communism that I missed? Sure, if you cherry pick you can always find merits in absolutely everything, including in catching Covid: you get sick leave and get to stay at home, or in the war in Ukraine: it boosts the defense industry spending. Even though those are all net negatives, but who cares right? Let's look at the merits and not at the whole picture which is overall terrible.
      - sgift 3y ago
        Sure, here's an easy example: The GDR had childcare for everyone. And the reason for that was based in the system, namely that communism says everyone is equal, men and women both work. Western Germany said childcare is the work of the woman, who cares about public childcare? The communist system was far better, which is why we - after having dismantled it in the 90s for Eastern Germany - are now back to providing childcare for all children. Though it will take decades until it works again.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        The GDR is a highly biased example. The GDR was by far the wealthiest of the communist countries so that the USSR could flaunt how much better communism is to the western Germany. The GDR was basically the Apple Store equivalent of the USSR/comunist block in Eastern Europe. Life in the GDR was nothing like life in Romania for example which was closer to North Korea in how its citizens had food and other necessities.
        sgift 3y ago
        Romania is also a highly biased example based on Ceaușescus personal decisions on how a country should be run. Which shows my original point: Even within the communist countries you can find difference and things which worked better or worse. Just putting them in some big "it's communism, all was shit" bin is an oversimplification which doesn't help at all.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Even within the communist countries you can find difference and things which worked better or worse. That's true, but life in the GDR was still shit compared to the west, even if it was the least shit out of all the eastern block. You can powder a turd in sugar but it's still not gonna be edible, it will still be a turd. That's why people from the est were risking to get shot/arrested to cross the border west. Better childcare wasn't enough to unshittify the life in the east.
  - galactus 3y ago
    The funny part of people who have lived in ex-communist countries is that when they think capitalism they only think US and western Europe and not all that part of the rest of the world that has been fully integrated into global capitalism for quite a long time and is still very poor because they are in the _wrong_ side of capitalism, the part that is there only to function as providers of natural resources. The part that has been historically kept in that place (often violently) by the countries that people that come from ex-communist countries admire so much
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >that part of the rest of the world that has been fully integrated into global capitalism for quite a long time and is still very poor because they are in the _wrong_ side of capitalism Sorry mate, but capitalism and integration into the world economy has lifted million(billions?) out of poverty even from the countries on the wrong side of capitalism (the ones being exploited by the richer ones). Look at present day South Korea vs North Korea. Post-WW2 South Korea was poorer than the North, but after the sixties the South economically skyrocketed while the North stil wallows in absolute poverty. A lot of Asia post-WW2(Japan, Taiwan, Korea, India, etc) became the sweatshop of the west/US, or "on the wrong side of capitalism" to quote you, and look at them now. Would they have been better off today without that phase? That's what you have to look at.
      - galactus 3y ago
        Science and technology lifted them from poverty, not capitalism. The state in those countries played a huge role
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Science and technology has progresses thanks to cash injections from capitalists, not just from governments of broke countries. The Taiwanese government paid to buy technology transfers on semiconductor manufacturing tech from the US in the sixties and seventies, but for that to happen, RCA in the US had to spend "hella' stacks" in R&D to invent that tech in the first place and iterate on it at scale until it got cheaper for mass production and affordable for other less wealthy countries to buy it too.
  - mik1998 3y ago
    Aren't they literally Ossi?
  - arp242 3y ago
    Trying to force this in to a capitalism vs. communism false dilemma is so boring. No one mentioned communism until you. There is not a single fully capitalist nation state on the planet. All have significant legislation and elements of socialism. "Capitalism" can take many forms; some better than others. The (rather ranty) statement talks about "predatory capitalists" for example. "Crony capitalism" is also another commonly used term.
- lloeki 3y ago
  > It is just, that their concepts of what comes next, are quite vague Oh, many have at-hand solutions alright! It's just that these heart-warming intuitive solutions break down when faced with realities of scale. > Wind turbines deface! Solar panels pollute to produce! Batteries are full of metals you have to dig for! Screw industrial-scale food/production/distribution! Proof: I buy from the local shop/market/producer! Yay, getting your Thanksgiving turkey from the local farm sure is nice, except... how much local producers have to produce to provide continuous daily sustenance to, say, a ~1M town? How much surface is needed to produce that amount? How are the logistics handled to move such local goods around? How much energy is expended in the whole process? I'm not saying the ideas don't have merit, it's just that the revolution as envisioned falls apart with a bit of system thinking and a couple minutes of napkin math. That, or decimate the global human population and have survivors live in extreme scarcity.

You see the problem then.

They care, but see "capitalism" as the root problem and revolution as the only solution. It is just, that their concepts of what comes next, are quite vague.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
[flagged]
- rancour 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    Source: the 20th century and literally any history book
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Source: open a book on life in communism/USSR, or just look at Eastern Europe pre-1990 versus today.
- sgift 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Excuse my ignorance of someone who grew up in an ex-commie country, but what were the merits of communism that I missed? Sure, if you cherry pick you can always find merits in absolutely everything, including in catching Covid: you get sick leave and get to stay at home, or in the war in Ukraine: it boosts the defense industry spending. Even though those are all net negatives, but who cares right? Let's look at the merits and not at the whole picture which is overall terrible.
    - sgift 3y ago
      Sure, here's an easy example: The GDR had childcare for everyone. And the reason for that was based in the system, namely that communism says everyone is equal, men and women both work. Western Germany said childcare is the work of the woman, who cares about public childcare? The communist system was far better, which is why we - after having dismantled it in the 90s for Eastern Germany - are now back to providing childcare for all children. Though it will take decades until it works again.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        The GDR is a highly biased example. The GDR was by far the wealthiest of the communist countries so that the USSR could flaunt how much better communism is to the western Germany. The GDR was basically the Apple Store equivalent of the USSR/comunist block in Eastern Europe. Life in the GDR was nothing like life in Romania for example which was closer to North Korea in how its citizens had food and other necessities.
        sgift 3y ago
        Romania is also a highly biased example based on Ceaușescus personal decisions on how a country should be run. Which shows my original point: Even within the communist countries you can find difference and things which worked better or worse. Just putting them in some big "it's communism, all was shit" bin is an oversimplification which doesn't help at all.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Even within the communist countries you can find difference and things which worked better or worse. That's true, but life in the GDR was still shit compared to the west, even if it was the least shit out of all the eastern block. You can powder a turd in sugar but it's still not gonna be edible, it will still be a turd. That's why people from the est were risking to get shot/arrested to cross the border west. Better childcare wasn't enough to unshittify the life in the east.
- galactus 3y ago
  The funny part of people who have lived in ex-communist countries is that when they think capitalism they only think US and western Europe and not all that part of the rest of the world that has been fully integrated into global capitalism for quite a long time and is still very poor because they are in the _wrong_ side of capitalism, the part that is there only to function as providers of natural resources. The part that has been historically kept in that place (often violently) by the countries that people that come from ex-communist countries admire so much
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >that part of the rest of the world that has been fully integrated into global capitalism for quite a long time and is still very poor because they are in the _wrong_ side of capitalism Sorry mate, but capitalism and integration into the world economy has lifted million(billions?) out of poverty even from the countries on the wrong side of capitalism (the ones being exploited by the richer ones). Look at present day South Korea vs North Korea. Post-WW2 South Korea was poorer than the North, but after the sixties the South economically skyrocketed while the North stil wallows in absolute poverty. A lot of Asia post-WW2(Japan, Taiwan, Korea, India, etc) became the sweatshop of the west/US, or "on the wrong side of capitalism" to quote you, and look at them now. Would they have been better off today without that phase? That's what you have to look at.
    - galactus 3y ago
      Science and technology lifted them from poverty, not capitalism. The state in those countries played a huge role
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Science and technology has progresses thanks to cash injections from capitalists, not just from governments of broke countries. The Taiwanese government paid to buy technology transfers on semiconductor manufacturing tech from the US in the sixties and seventies, but for that to happen, RCA in the US had to spend "hella' stacks" in R&D to invent that tech in the first place and iterate on it at scale until it got cheaper for mass production and affordable for other less wealthy countries to buy it too.
- mik1998 3y ago
  Aren't they literally Ossi?
- arp242 3y ago
  Trying to force this in to a capitalism vs. communism false dilemma is so boring. No one mentioned communism until you. There is not a single fully capitalist nation state on the planet. All have significant legislation and elements of socialism. "Capitalism" can take many forms; some better than others. The (rather ranty) statement talks about "predatory capitalists" for example. "Crony capitalism" is also another commonly used term.
lloeki 3y ago
> It is just, that their concepts of what comes next, are quite vague Oh, many have at-hand solutions alright! It's just that these heart-warming intuitive solutions break down when faced with realities of scale. > Wind turbines deface! Solar panels pollute to produce! Batteries are full of metals you have to dig for! Screw industrial-scale food/production/distribution! Proof: I buy from the local shop/market/producer! Yay, getting your Thanksgiving turkey from the local farm sure is nice, except... how much local producers have to produce to provide continuous daily sustenance to, say, a ~1M town? How much surface is needed to produce that amount? How are the logistics handled to move such local goods around? How much energy is expended in the whole process? I'm not saying the ideas don't have merit, it's just that the revolution as envisioned falls apart with a bit of system thinking and a couple minutes of napkin math. That, or decimate the global human population and have survivors live in extreme scarcity.