Having large numbers of people starve to death seems like a pretty damning indictment of a system. But I dunno, maybe I’m overly attached to food?
Having large numbers of people starve to death seems like a pretty damning indictment of a system. But I dunno, maybe I’m overly attached to food?
How do you reconcile capitalism with climate catastrophe and ecological collapse?
These seem like a pretty damning indictment of a system. But i dunno, maybe i just like living things
Hey, I’m not trying to say capitalism is great. But when Germany reunited, the eastern, communist part was the one with incredible toxic soil, poisoned inhabitants and barely a fish in its rivers.
I don’t see that any of those systems is inherently better from the “living things” point of view.
It’s obviously a loaded question.
But I am still curious as to a historical interpretation of events.
Edit: even a historical awareness of events. W/ the Holodomor specifically, I expect in the immediate post WWII landscape, there would be no western interest on even recognizing it as occurred? I expect there would be at least an eastern European awareness, but was their media already under the thumb on the government?
Again, would love just an objective answer to the question instead of people just whattabouting the obvious ragebait
A carbon tax falls well within a capitalist system (much the same as any other tax or method of dealing with externalities) so I’d put that as a failure of democratic systems more than anything.
I’m also not convinced communism would actually solve the problem. Communists have historically been pretty reluctant to share bad news, from letting folks know about mass starvations to, oh, most of the world news in China.
Whether you realise it or not, you are making a very poor argument. I could reply that eating food falls well within a communist system, therefore you can’t blame communism for famines.
The fact is that the majority of the world is capitalist (including, of course, major oil companies who have known about climate change for decades and hid the research) and yet the planet is still being made uninhabitable almost as quickly as we possibly can.
Why does capitalism get a free pass for this but communism doesn’t get the same treatment?
Try again when you’re sober, that’s not a particular cogent argument.
I didn’t actually make that argument, I just said that I could. It would be of a similar quality to the argument you actually made though.
(Your argument is argument is poor because although carbon taxes could fall under a capitalist system, they are not being implemented in a way that is actually useful. You are arguing hypothetical but unrealised positives for capitalism but not allowing such arguments for communism.)
I won’t be replying to you again because I have better things to do than argue online.
A carbon tax won’t address habitat destruction for revenue generation or planned obsolescence models used in order to extract the maximum of sales regardless of waste generated.
And what is it that’s been undermining the democratic systems? Extreme concentration of wealth, courtesy of capitalism.