1159
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe capitalism needs to suck it up and pull itself up by its bootstraps instead of needing subsidized fossil fuels. /s

[-] grue@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

↑ This, but without the /s.

In particular, we need to protect the free market by creating a carbon tax to compensate for fossil fuels' negative externalities and level the playing field for "greener" competitors.

Not taxing carbon is anti-capitalist protectionism.

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That or have the state stop giving money to corpos that definitely don't need it, or by breaking up monopolies just so fair competition can be a thing.

Seriously, thinking that America's system is capitalist is just as stupid as thinking it's the land of the free

[-] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What murica has is what happens when you take the breaks off and let crap run to its logical extreme (and with rampant corruption where the cars breaks used to be)

Regulatory capture.

Revolving doors.

Political dark money.

Monopolies that manage to be technically not monopolies some frakkin how.

Rackets that never get charged as such.

Planned obsolescence.

Anticompetetive and anti consumer practices all over and the erosion of rights - you effectivly don't own what you buy and can't resell it anymore.

Trade agreements to export this insanity to other countries.

Granting corporations the ability to sue NATIONS over "lost profits" in response to resonable regulation!

Instead of "harnessing greed" its run rampant and unchecked to the point its destroying our environment at an insane pace. And its spreading beyond america. It has been for years most people just haven't realized it yet. (Ed: by "it", I mean this corrupt thing that America thinks of as capitalism, is overtaming what you may think of as calitalism)

The cancer has metastisized, and we'll need to reinvent a strongly regulated similar system that rejects the clear broken parts in order to excise it - capitalism as is, is lost. It's not sustainable.

I realize I'm talking in a very pro socialist/pro communist space but what I'm saying doesn't mean I think capitalism was always terrible. But any good times it had are soon coming to an end.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 43 points 1 year ago

You don't need to end capitalism to help the climate.

Just properly regulate it. It's a tool just like every other economic system, and shouldn't be hoisted to a higher pedestal. Every system that fails fails because regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption. Capitalism's only strength is it took longer to get there because all the power was spread out for awhile.

[-] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

That's a pretty shallow take on historic economics.

Capitalism had a role to serve as the transition out of feudal economics.

Now it's time to do better.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Better as in what though?

We've used every economic system by itself, and the only really successful version is a combination of them with proper regulation. What else do you do?

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Well there was a guy with a funny beard who wrote about what happens when capitalism produces more goods and services than could ever be reasonably consumed by the populace of the world. He wrote about how there were basically 2 coutcomes. Either the the rising supply just keeps pushing prices down until the only issue comes down to a logistics and distribution problem and money functionally becomes pointless and state power doesnt have any heirarchy to enforce. Or the people with money and power enforce artificial scarcity, through tactics like letting crops die in the fields, or only release so many diamonds into the market and promiting it as a good thing, to protect their wealth and power.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

That seems more like a jab at capitalism than anything I said in that previous question.

Better as in what? What else hasn't been tried?

[-] Void_Reader@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Consider this: modern capitalism was pretty much inconceivable to people living in the feudal era. In the same way, it is possible that the system we need is inconceivable to us at the moment. Critiquing capitalism and advocating for a move away from it is still useful.

There are plenty of things that haven't been tried aside from small-scale examples:

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Okay, fair enough.

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It is a jab at capitalism. But the theory as the funny beard man stated it would be an evolution of capitalism. Capitalism was very good at making technological progress, advancing productive capacity immensely. His critique is that all that progress wasn't used to make people's lives better.

The major iterations of communism that everyone points to didn't start with fully industrialized societies. They were predominantly agrarian societies coming out of a monarchy, that were pushed through industrialization very rapidly and were left extremely unstable and subject to extreme authoritarianism.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Socialism is probably the most realistic solution that's been "half tried" (and yes there's a difference between socialism and communism, the right just doesn't want people to know it because they might start thinking there's a viable alternative)... State run non profit corporations for all essential needs, capitalism for things that aren't essential. We went as far as creating some state run corporations, some of them non profit, but we never moved far enough in that direction to truly see how beneficial it can be for the masses to not have to enrich investors when buying food or clothing or renting an apartment...

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

regulation falls off the wayside and leads into corruption

And vice versa! Corruption leads to lack of regulation. It's a shit circular dance that I feel like we're doomed to repeat regardless of the economic system we pick.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Corruption nearly always leads to more regulation but targeted against competitors.

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I think it's pretty clear we aren't necessarily talking only about the quantity of bills passed, but also the quality

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] subarctictundra@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Capitalism is a horrible master but a good slave. Just like we regulated the other forces of nature (like fire) to harness them in our favour, so should we harness market forces to work for us.

[-] SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Capitalism works well when there is plenty of potential for growth, but when there are non-monetary reasons (such as the literal end of ecosystems favorable to human life) that require adjustments or even degrowth, it quickly devolves into feudalism - and the problem is that we do not have the means to quickly stop CO2 emissions without tightening our belts in energy consumption, which in turn requires some degree of degrowth.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 year ago

Is there a lemmy equivalent to /r/SelfAwareWolves? Because this fits.

[-] duckington@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] CommunityLinkFixer 8 points 1 year ago

Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !selfawarewolves@lemmy.ml

[-] sverit@feddit.de 33 points 1 year ago

selfawarewolves material

[-] zepheriths@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It's just that capital would grow slower. You can have a green capitalism. It just that no one invested in that

[-] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

The problem is externalities. Companies have to be held responsible for their damage.

If governments held companies liable for the full cost of fixing their damage to humanity and earth I honestly don't know how many would be left.

[-] Screwthehole@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry but you missed the memo that polluting is free

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

"Green capitalism" only exists if green energy is more profitable than climate-harming alternatives

Given the multiple decades of oil and gas infrastructure, that's not realistic.

In theory, consumer demand for green energy could make this a reality, but it would have to be a massive swing. And in practice, most consumers will go for the cheapest option - in many cases, given their resources, they have to.

The other way that green energy could become more profitable is through heavy government regulation. So... yeah you could have a green 'capitalism' if the State manages the market, and withstands the corporate pressure to withdraw. But that has literally happened nowhere

I suppose hypothetically you could argue that IF a company invested heavily in green technology and IF that investment resulted in a cheaper form of energy, AND that technology also applied to the supply chain, then we could have green capitalism. But i mean that's highly speculative and it also would be entirely a coincidence

[-] snek@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've only recently come across PragerU on Youtube, and ever since I have only been rolling my eyes at what they say.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago

They're yet another cancer on society...

[-] frenchdresses@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The mothers days day after I had a baby, they sent me a book in the mail about a boy and a dog (I think the dogs name was Otto) celebrating mothers. It was weird but historically accurate. They said that one of the founding fathers mother was a good mother because she taught the founding fathers the bible. Im not sure what to do with the book... Donate it?

[-] tpyo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I love animals. I hate mosquitoes. If one gets in my house I'll hunt it down and smash it gleefully. Then apologize and tell it I feel bad because it didn't choose to be born a mosquito

Same for this book. I love books and feel they should be respected, but perhaps this one is like a mosquito and maybe should be disposed of into the recycling

[-] IverCoder@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

They certainly shouldn't complain about reciprocity. They will though.

[-] snek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Send them another book, "The Wright Brothers". At least their mom was an awesome lady, a goddamn mechanical engineer, and a college graduate. She taught them how to bang on and tinker with stuff and ta-da now we have airplanes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SattaRIP@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

"Think tank" as in circlejerk.

[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] cake 9 points 1 year ago

Best comedy website ever

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

patriarchy too, pal.. might as well learn it now..

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They say that like it's a bad thing.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
1159 points (96.3% liked)

The memes of the climate

1543 readers
1 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS