Recent searches
Search options
The idea that it were impossible to stop #ClimateChange without massive social upheaval (e. g. »ending #capitalism«) is in my view already disproved: there are big industrial grids that have mostly decarbonized almost accidentally without such a revolution, e. g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
The question is why it's still being brought up.
(edit: this is really more a question than a comment)
Climate change and environmental degradation in general are only done because there is a financial incentive for capitalist countries to do so, an incentive created by the capitalist need of infinite growth and profit accumulation. The countries that you mentioned that have decarbonized are outliers amongst dozens of capitalist countries that haven't and have no incentive to do so because their intrests prioritize profit accumulation over protecting and preserving the environment. 1/2
That is why people say that the only way to truly stop climate change is to replace capitalism, the system the has profit as the top priority, with socialism, a system that has human well-being (and by extension, also the well-being of the environment that humans live in) as the top priority. 2/2
@Radical_EgoCom Given how incredibly hard it seems to be to replace capitalism (no country has done it and survived), and how it seems in comparison to be much easier to decarbonize, it appears like a very effective delaying tactic.
Cuba, just to give one example, is a country that has abolished capitalism and has survived, but besides that, the incentive to not de-carbonize lies within capitalism itself, that incentive being that capitalism, of which its top priority is profit, can make money from commodifying nature and destroying it in the process. 1/2
) @Radical_EgoCom @Ardubal
As a Cuban myself, allow me to disagree with using Cuba as an example here. "..has abolished capitalism.."? It tried, but failed miserably. Today Cuban live under a very weird form of neoliberalism that I don't see as the goal of any society. "..has survived..", that is a stretch. They are barely surviving one day after another with no clear path into the future, if you have time and energy to think about the future, that is.
There have been reforms in the Cuban economy done out of necessity allowing limited private enterprise and foreign investment, but the economic structure of Cuba still remains largely socialist, with the vast majority of the means of production being owned by the state, so I still see it as appropriate to refer to Cuba as a socialist state because of this. 1/2
Cuba has both in the past and present faced and is facing constant (and illegal) sanctions on their country by the US and other similarly aligned capitalist states, yet despite all of it, in addition to being a small country, has managed to survive while making minimal compromises, and the fact that they've managed to do this speaks volumes for the capabilities of both Cuba and socialism in general. 2/2
@Radical_EgoCom @osmani Let's not over-simplify here, but however you define the current status of Cuba, it definitely is not in any position to decarbonize in any forseeable timeframe.
If you claim to need A to be able to do B, i. e. (not (and (not A) B)), then you would need to have NO instances of (and (not A) B), and it would help to have a demonstration instance of (and A B). But instead, you do have instances of (and (not A) B), and an instance of (and A (not B)).
@Radical_EgoCom @osmani Of course, all the examples I mentioned are no purely capitalist countries. It really helps to have a state strong enough to properly adjust incentives. But you also need a population educated enough to see things through.