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)).
The current status of Cuba isn't what I think people should aspire for. I only used Cuba as one example of a country that abolished capitalism and survived. What I think people should aspire towards is a state socialist model that has both eliminated the profit driven motive of environmental degradation due to its socialist nature and is outwardly protective of the environment.
@Radical_EgoCom @osmani I think that illustrates my point: abolishing capitalism has little to do with stopping climate change. People claiming you need to abolish capitalism in order to stop climate change are more interested in the former than in the latter.
That is not to say that unchecked capitalism works, of course. See the other branch of this conversation at https://mastodon.xyz/@Ardubal/113715494783050941
I've already illustrated how stopping capitalism does have to do with stopping climate change. Capitalism makes actions that are harmful to the environment profitable, and since capitalism prioritizes profit over everything else, it leaves little to no incentive to protect the environment. That is why replacing capitalism with socialism, a system of people (and their environment) over profit, is necessary to stop climate change.
@Radical_EgoCom @osmani You keep stating the same thing, when there are no examples for that mechanism working, but counterexamples where decarbonization was achieved without social upheaval.
I think you can (and must) limit capitalist incentives, but I don't think you have to go all the way to absolute socialism or communism. I don't think that the latter are harmful per se, but I am sure that poverty is an absolute obstacle for any way forward.