I mean it's entirely possible to live in a mostly capitalistic world and not have climate change. It just needs the right rules and regulations and taxes. Just imagine how the world would be if governments made the right decisions in the 1970s. We'd probably have no fossil fuels at all, electric cars were the norm and probably much more nuklear energy. Still capitalism but without climate change.
Capitalist capture of government institutions isn’t a bug of capitalism, it’s a feature. The ability to command vast amounts of productive resources enables capitalists to exert political influence.
Whatever clever policies we could come up with are irrelevant as long as those in power are the ones who stand to gain the most by resisting change.
There isn’t a way this works out in our favor. Even in countries with capitalism + social safety nets, we see that overtime the capitalists slowly erode public gains through privatization.
That might work on paper, but not in reality.
Look, capitalism was also a great idea on paper, no doubt there... how things panned out, that's an entirely different story.
Capitalism was good, and useful, as an improvement over Feudalism.
Now, it's time to do better and move towards the next stage in our evolution. Socialism.
That one’s been tried - spoiler: it’s worse.
Pick literally any former USSR state and compare the improvements in living standards before and after socialism.
No Leninist and Authoritarian society ever managed to turn control of the means of production over to the workers.
Besides, with more attentive you would find that even Lenin's abortive revolution was preferable to Tsarist Russia.
Either way Makno's Black Army territories are more illustrative of Socialism than examples based in Leninist counterrevolution and tyranny.
In theory yes, in reality no.
Rules and regulations are the opposite of free market capitalism. The only way to address climate change is to make society less capitalistic. The regulations required to fix climate change with capitalism would pretty much turn it into a different -ism.
And that's without considering whether billionaires will even let that happen.
It's already been figured out that unfettered capitalism does not work. Rules and regs are required, but it also requires a government beholden to people instead of big business to actually enforce said rules and regulations.
Very true. Capitalist governments are compromised, and unable to perform their stated duties.
You’re missing how a free market is meant to work.
In a free market, ALL costs are captured and paid for at whatever rate the market determines is fair. At the moment, polluters aren’t paying for CO2 emissions - the cost of those emissions is being paid by society. In economics, that’s called an Externality, and most economists agree that the governments role is to capture externalities, because they’re a deviation from a proper free market.
To fix this, the government could enforce a rule that says all companies must be carbon neutral, and then allow businesses that are carbon-negative to trade their excess with companies who are carbon-positive. versions of this are being done in many places. The issue is the inertia of the existing systems, and the fact that you can’t just make these changes overnight.
That only matters of everyone is playing fair. It's pretty clear that the government is controlled by corporations, and it's kinda naive to think that we can just expect corporations to allow regulation to pass that hurts their profits. What we hear about free markets and externalities and regulations is just theory. Reality says that things will get much worse.
But then the problem isn’t capitalism, it’s corruption. Power corrupts, and Socialism places more power in fewer hands - I don’t see how that helps the environment.
I agree that corporations (especially big oil, coal, and legacy auto) are paying off politicians to slow progress on environmental issues. But abolishing those corporations and giving the power to unaccountable beuraucrats would be even worse.
Socialism doesn't do that, authoritarian right wing divergence in Socialism do.
Leninism was a reactionary end to socialist revolution, not an illustrative example.
Makno's Black Army territories much better illustrate how Socialism works.
I mean it's entirely possible to live in a mostly capitalistic world and not have climate change. It just needs the right rules and regulations and taxes. Just imagine how the world would be if governments made the right decisions in the 1970s. We'd probably have no fossil fuels at all, electric cars were the norm and probably much more nuklear energy. Still capitalism but without climate change.
Capitalist capture of government institutions isn’t a bug of capitalism, it’s a feature. The ability to command vast amounts of productive resources enables capitalists to exert political influence.
Whatever clever policies we could come up with are irrelevant as long as those in power are the ones who stand to gain the most by resisting change.
There isn’t a way this works out in our favor. Even in countries with capitalism + social safety nets, we see that overtime the capitalists slowly erode public gains through privatization.
That might work on paper, but not in reality.
Look, capitalism was also a great idea on paper, no doubt there... how things panned out, that's an entirely different story.
Capitalism was good, and useful, as an improvement over Feudalism.
Now, it's time to do better and move towards the next stage in our evolution. Socialism.
That one’s been tried - spoiler: it’s worse.
Pick literally any former USSR state and compare the improvements in living standards before and after socialism.
No Leninist and Authoritarian society ever managed to turn control of the means of production over to the workers.
Besides, with more attentive you would find that even Lenin's abortive revolution was preferable to Tsarist Russia.
Either way Makno's Black Army territories are more illustrative of Socialism than examples based in Leninist counterrevolution and tyranny.
In theory yes, in reality no.
Rules and regulations are the opposite of free market capitalism. The only way to address climate change is to make society less capitalistic. The regulations required to fix climate change with capitalism would pretty much turn it into a different -ism.
And that's without considering whether billionaires will even let that happen.
It's already been figured out that unfettered capitalism does not work. Rules and regs are required, but it also requires a government beholden to people instead of big business to actually enforce said rules and regulations.
Very true. Capitalist governments are compromised, and unable to perform their stated duties.
You’re missing how a free market is meant to work.
In a free market, ALL costs are captured and paid for at whatever rate the market determines is fair. At the moment, polluters aren’t paying for CO2 emissions - the cost of those emissions is being paid by society. In economics, that’s called an Externality, and most economists agree that the governments role is to capture externalities, because they’re a deviation from a proper free market.
To fix this, the government could enforce a rule that says all companies must be carbon neutral, and then allow businesses that are carbon-negative to trade their excess with companies who are carbon-positive. versions of this are being done in many places. The issue is the inertia of the existing systems, and the fact that you can’t just make these changes overnight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
That only matters of everyone is playing fair. It's pretty clear that the government is controlled by corporations, and it's kinda naive to think that we can just expect corporations to allow regulation to pass that hurts their profits. What we hear about free markets and externalities and regulations is just theory. Reality says that things will get much worse.
But then the problem isn’t capitalism, it’s corruption. Power corrupts, and Socialism places more power in fewer hands - I don’t see how that helps the environment.
I agree that corporations (especially big oil, coal, and legacy auto) are paying off politicians to slow progress on environmental issues. But abolishing those corporations and giving the power to unaccountable beuraucrats would be even worse.
Socialism doesn't do that, authoritarian right wing divergence in Socialism do.
Leninism was a reactionary end to socialist revolution, not an illustrative example.
Makno's Black Army territories much better illustrate how Socialism works.
Once again, Ukraine > Russia