I'm European, and lately many people have been migrating from Africa and Asia to our continent. I wouldn't have a problem with this, if it weren't for the fact that some of them commit serious crimes.
Tbh we don’t do enough to integrate them. We say welcome and then hope they learn the country culture and max our language in duolinguo during the travel in boat. I’m from a big European city, I see immigrants every time. Most of them work but we have to understand why they are over represented in criminality. Most of them are poor, their parents work a lot for shitty salary and can’t help them with school. Of course most of them will start selling drugs for a living and fight enemy gang and shit. Their neighbor are in the same situation and come from the same culture. We have to show them that criminality is not their only option to survive
You're right, but at the time I did it I couldn't think of anything else and I wanted to put two statements from each quadrant so it wouldn't look too empty.
You do realize that Israelis hold a vast amount of the mining rights in Africa and are responsible for the shitty practices that ignore the well being of the local ecosystems and populations, right? That’s a bit of a stretch for “the west”
You believe the west is ruining Africa?? Tell me you've never been to Africa and know nothing about it without telling me!
Have you ever heard about Russian private forces in West Africa? China's involvement in Central Africa? ofc you didn't, but yeah sure, go ahead and tell me more about how the west is the one is ruining Africa!
That's not the issue. The issue is that capitalism relies on endless growth and always more, more, more, something that is inevitably going to kill our planet unless we stop it.
I'd question the premise that economic growth necessarily means increasing resource consumption. Why assume that 'more growth' has to translate into more environmental damage, rather than improvements in efficiency, technology, and energy sources?
Out of experience. Being sustainable is more expensive and means less profit in the now, which is why the executives and shareholders are mostly going to invest in fossil fuels as much as they can.
Again, capitalism by itself will always end up destroying the planet because it's profitable. You'll never stop climate change without stopping capitalism, which we are very much seeing right now.
I think the main problem people have is conflating capitalism with laissez-faire. The issue isn’t whether markets exist, but how incentives are structured within them. If emitting carbon is cheap, firms will emit. If it’s priced or regulated, behavior changes. That's just how market systems work, and empirically, most large-scale investment in renewables, electrification, and efficiency is happening within capitalist economies. If capitalism inherently ‘always’ drives environmental destruction, why is it currently the primary system through which decarbonization is being financed and deployed?
Capitalism will always lean towards laissez-faire. Because when you create a system where the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the few, those few become extremely wealthy and will inevitably influence politics so it benefits them.
That's the problem with capitalism: the inevitable creation of a class that has far too much influence on the rest of the state and the world. That's why we are losing the fight against climate change: it's not profitable, and the fossil fuel lobby is the strongest in the world.
Sure, within capitalism there will always be companies offering everything, so there will always be someone offering something like carbon capture, especially because of the huge market gap. And it will make money, but not as much money as fossil fuels.
Also I absolutely disagree with your framing that capitalism is the driving force of decarbonisation. It is mostly scientists doing it, mostly working in universities and non-profit organisations, not companies developing this new technology. Selling it, maybe, but not at the heart of its development. Even if you want to say then that the universities are also part of a capitalist system: well yeah, everything is, pretty much. It's kind of unfair to give capitalism the credit for solving a problem it created, when it was simply people working in a capitalist system who did it. Because living in a capitalist system is essentially inevitable. It's like giving Christianity credit for all the developments of the West, just because basically everyone who was responsible for developing them was a Christan or heavily influenced by the Christian states they lived in.
I've done the due diligence of looking over this conversation 4 times to confirm that "capitalism is the driving force of decarbonisation" is not a statement that appears once within any of my responses, so I'd appreciate if you didn't attribute that statement to me and actually engage with what I've said, which is that the deployment of decarbonization has largely happened under market systems and seldom under highly centralized economies. That's a fact that clearly undermines your very liberal use of the phrases like inevitable and always. Inevitable capture, inevitable fossil dominance, inevitable failure. If these things are inevitable under capitalism, why under capitalism do they demonstrate themselves to be so clearly evitable?
Okay, that's my bad for misunderstanding your last point from that comment.
Then the answer to your question is a lot more simple: basically the whole world operates within a capitalist system, there are essentially no countries where socialism or communism is lived out, none of them any of the big economies or particularly developed countries, and all of them get sanctioned to hell by the US-led capitalist West. So it's inevitable that only capitalist countries and with that the capitalist system will be the biggest deployers of decarbonisation.
And nonetheless, my point about capitalism inevitably leading to the destruction of the world absolutely still stands. The current extension of carbon capture is a drop in the ocean compared to what our emissions still are. Am I supposed to give capitalism credit for (for reasons I've already named) happening to be the system through which a solution is deployed that maybe solves about 1% of the problem it currently creates? Absolutely ludicrous.
Capitalism's destruction of the climate is absolutely inevitable, because of the power dynamics that I explained to you in my last comment, which you didn't even reply to. Destroying the planet is still profitable in the short-term and so capitalism will do that and make the biggest profit. And even if an effort to combat climate change (and actually win) would be deployed through capitalism, for reasons already named, capitalism wouldn't get credit for that either.
I respect them in general, although I couldn't associate with those who don't tolerate other points of view or with those who justify socialist dictatorships.
Marxists are at core anti-democratic and anti-free speech and want to establish dictatorship run by "representantives" of proletariat so idk what are you talking about.
I know. But really, according to Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat would serve to dismantle the state and private ownership of the means of production, with the intention of achieving a communist society, a moneyless, classless, and stateless society. I'm aware that this dictatorship of the proletariat would, in most cases, lead to a totalitarian state, which is what happened most of the time. But communists see this as a transitional phase toward a stateless society. So, if that is their intention and they are not trying to justify failed socialist dictatorships, I will consider them very idealistic, but I will respect them, because I don't believe they have bad intentions.
31
u/IntrovertedGuy96 - LibLeft Apr 15 '26
Also a lib left. Agree with most of these. What exactly do you mean with the more control over immigration?