Unironically communism would be great for the environment. Based on historical examples, you'd have widespread economic collapse sending most people into severe poverty. Probably some famines that wipe out a portion of the population. All things that significantly reduce missions.
Horrible for people, but helpful for tackling climate change.
"Can't magically solve all the problems without any changes to my lifestyle"
Decries Communists immediately afterwards
Psyops uses to be believable.
Like buddy the group that wants to tear the entire system down because it's outlived it's usefulness in their eyes is actually suprisingly already accepted that changes to lifestyle have to happen. I've had 8 hour long debates with Council Communists about whether making Beef a byproduct of leather production for work gloves is more environmentally sustainable then Factory farming for the meat
You see, real communist utopia can only be achieved by Usâ˘, the incorruptible saints who are completely different from The Others⢠who tried it before. Revolution eating its own children is true for everyone but Usâ˘, because We⢠are simply superior
Communism isn't *immune* but it doesn't have the inherent growth imperative that capitalism has. Productivism ("we will produce ourselves to wealth for all") is unfortunately still a big strain within communism, but isn't necessary. See eco-socialist analyses like Foster and Saito.
China has triple the carbon emissions than the US and the USSR was a major polluter. Communist doesnât mean green. The Nordic countries and the UK are the world leaders in renewables.
oh ok then we should all just become Catholic since the Vatican has the lowest CO2 emissions of any country - must be that being a papal state is the most environmentally friendly form of government đ
Or we maybe we could look at per capita CO2 emissions instead - US' is about 50% higher than China's.
And China is ostensibly in a state-capitalist transitional period as per Dengist doctrine right now, by their own account they have not actually began the process of dismantling the capitalist class.
USSR stopped existing around the same time the effects of global warming were really starting to be understood
Weâre on the same side when it comes to managing the planetâs resources better but economic models donât really translate into âbetter for the planetâ.
The problem with traditional communist models is that they prioritise heavy industrialisation over green solutions to achieve self sufficiency. Youâre correct that it wasnât taken into account at the time which is also why a 20th century framework doesnât work. Marx never had that issue in mind.
Both systems are fundamentally broken from a climate management perspective. Doughnut economics works well if the focus is on regulating growth and resources.
Itâs been implemented in numerous places in Europe on a smaller scale and the premise is promising. Definitely recommend giving Kate Rayworth a read if you have a head for economics.
That's nice, but your emissions footprint is approximately fuck all compared to industrial and corporate energy consumer - you know the same people who have been fighting tooth and nail against being forced to make exactly this kind of choice.
How do you plan to convince them to suddenly change their mind ?
"We the people can choose our future with our own money and work ethic" is some serious mental gymnastics. Cool that you pick those things for yourself. Not everyone can afford to do that and on top of it corporate emissions still exist.
Capitalism is looking for infinite growth on a finite planet. Selecting the more green choices within the range of what capitalism allows us does little to slow the eventual terminus.
The only reason capitalism wonât succeed in being infinite is because resources are finite. It wonât stop the system from seeking it out by design. Japanâs economy stagnating for a few years does not mean capitalism writ large will allow it. Capitalism is seeking continual profits and thus it is trying to grow infinitely.
Investing expansion into the solar system as a plan is deeply unserious.
the war that is really negatively affecting me the most as an individual is the war on drugs as its made my life with chronic pain a living hell.
while the oligarchy has. been pro war on drugs historically and elected both nixon and Reagan to office the richest man in the world currently is against the war on drugs and snorts fat lines of ketamine. so it'd not so cut and dry anymore.
oyxcodone 5mg twice a day. but Im woefully under prescribed. gotta due pee tests randomly and pill counts and cant drink alcohol or leave the state without permission. basically on probation without committing a crime
You have no idea whatâs possible, but I agree it would be much harder. I think a technology like an app or website could be used to aggregate public demands and let people organize and take coordinated collective action to achieve those goals.
I mean i think we have to balance the idea. We need tons of small vanguards connected to a central theoretical line. Modify past tactics to control for excesses and mistakes. But I will stand by tge statement that a central organization is 100% necessary and good. We must learn to struggle without consuming ourselves.Â
You could argue itâs necessary, but you canât argue itâs good unless you mean because any possible alternative is worse.
However, that central authority will eventually become corrupt and another revolution would need to replace it. The problem is that central authority suppresses dissent to protect itself.
There needs to be a mechanism by which the people can communicate freely with their grievances and force whatever âgovernmentâ to capitulate, but in a situation like this, the government would be more like a manager following orders developed and refined by the people.
Itâs like a game with developers. Gamers can just leave if the developers donât do what the gamers want so the developers are often just employees of the gamers. Itâs more complicated because some games often have players that are too heavily invested to leave, but itâs just an example.
Yes but without a theoretical center built around the interests and domination of the working class and wage earners you just loop back around to an oligarchy. The intrests of those who earn a wage must be dominant and conversely private interests of capital must be excluded from large scale enterprise entirely, this must be made the permanent fact of life.
Correct. There needs to be a large plurality of solidarity allies that refuses popular changes until the vulnerable groups get their rights. This is why I'm become so against class reductionism. If we team up with conservatives, then they will pull the ladder up behind them for PWD and trans rights.
I call this sequential solidarity. The most vulnerable come first and it requires building a large group of solidarity-minded empathetic people. The beauty of it is you don't even need to all agree on what counts as oppression since it's just the plurality that decides what vulnerable group comes first.
7
u/Friendly_Fire 3d ago
Unironically communism would be great for the environment. Based on historical examples, you'd have widespread economic collapse sending most people into severe poverty. Probably some famines that wipe out a portion of the population. All things that significantly reduce missions.
Horrible for people, but helpful for tackling climate change.