360
Protestation (discuss.tchncs.de)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NIB@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

Did capitalism destroy this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea is considered an example of ecosystem collapse.[42] The ecosystems of the Aral Sea and the river deltas feeding into it have been nearly destroyed, largely because of the salinity being dramatically higher than ocean water.[5] The receding sea has left huge plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals from weapons testing, industrial projects, and runoff of pesticides and fertilizer. Because of the shrinking water source and worsening water and soil quality, pesticides were increasingly used from the 1960s to raise cotton yield, which further polluted the water with toxins (e.g. HCH, TCCD, DDT).[43] Industrial pollution also resulted in PCB and heavy-metal contamination

This was the result of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature

Exploiting nature and fucking things up is not limited to capitalism.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Plus, animal consumption is among the top three causes of ecological destruction on this planet. Do people think burgers only exist under capitalism? That palm oil and pig meat are an obsession of the super rich? It’s not a matter of efficiency (farming is already absurdly efficient). It’s just math. Like everyone will give up chicken nuggets to save the planet or something? Good luck with that. People are obdurate and gross.

Getting rid of capitalism is a step in the right direction, sure, but unless folks are willing to give up meat, cars, airplanes, and who knows what other amenities, we are still just as fucked.

[-] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

Human caused environmental devastation didn't start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don't think humans are a virus, but I don't think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 11 months ago

We've been here 200,000 years, we've been farming for the last 12,000 of those. Environmental destruction is, reletively, a very very new phenomenon.

[-] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

That's an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.

[-] joostjakob@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Not to mention how all megafauna got extinct wherever modern humans showed up

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by

  1. the farming of animal products,
  2. the production and consumption of energy, and
  3. the extraction and transformation of material resources,

can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.

Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.

EDIT: the reply below completely ignores my question. Very few people seem to actually give a shit about the environment. It’s all just ideological posturing. And that is why we are fucked.

[-] onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Voluptas sed aut ut porro eius dolor. Nobis optio eaque architecto. Possimus illum itaque harum nulla doloribus. Beatae fuga labore quo.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…

You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.

  • Every 3 calories of beef require at least 100 calories of legumes.
  • Worse still, the average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
  • Add the methane and the nitrogenous runoff, and you have an ecological catastrophe.
  • If we ended animal agriculture, 75% of all farmland could be rewilded tomorrow.
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DeadPand@midwest.social 2 points 11 months ago

They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 18 points 11 months ago

Both can be true.

Capitalism didn't create itself... She's just looking at the root of the problem instead of its effects.

[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 19 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I just can't stop pooping out capitalism. It's literally a natural thing that I do. /S

[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The extinction of animals because of human action predates agriculture. This comic is the middle of the bell curve meme.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

These can exist at the same time. It is not binary.

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So China must be a paragon of eco-friendly, right? Right? Like, you wouldn't place all your bets in a pseudo-imaginary concept that has never been able to materialize and when it does it only seems to favor fascist behavior, right? Right? It must also mean that there aren't capitalist nations the means and innovation for protection of the environment, right? Right? You totally aren't setting yourself up for a scale you will define completely subjectively to suit your point, right? Right?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

So China must be a paragon of eco-friendly, right?

If every country was doing as well as China right now, the world would be a much better place. But the Chinese advantage is largely in its cutting edge industrial capacity. A bit unfair to hold Vietnam or Cuba to the standards of a tech giant.

It must also mean that there aren’t capitalist nations the means and innovation for protection of the environment, right? Right?

Economic central planning that forecasts the consequences of ecological degradation on a 5, 10, and 50 year time horizon will lead administrators to policies that individual businesses fixated on quarterly profits and annual executive compensation packages don't want to embrace.

Past that, a big part of what the Chinese environmentalist project has been about is experimentation. They've done manual reforesting along the Gobi Desert. They've done nuclear energy R&D. They've done carbon capture projects. They've invested enormous sums in their space program.

Most of the western R&D and infrastructure development has been limited by what the O&G industry is willing to directly invest in (carbon capture, converting from coal to nat gas with supplementary wind/solar, carbon credits and other forms of green financialization) all of which are designed to immediately enrich their bottom lines. That's not even considering the deliberate efforts to maximize fossil fuel usage (the Texas ERCOT grid refusing to buy cheap renewable/nuclear power from outside the state, various states threatening to prohibit/tax electric vehicles and renewable energy power systems).

To conclude capitalist rent seeking isn't guiding any of these policies is deeply irrational.

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

So, is China capitalist? Is it communist? Thank you for your totally not subjective reply.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

So, is China capitalist?

They seem to be employing a central planning model out of a public sector unconcerned with maximizing personal profits. So... No?

Is it communist?

Not yet. They appear to be exploring Socialism, but with a particular set of Chinese Characteristics. I think they're even a book on the subject.

Thank you for your totally not subjective reply.

No problem.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago
[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

This wasn't even true under Dengism, can you seriously look at their percentage of private sector now and say they're capitalist?

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Are they a liberal laissez faire capitalist market? No. However they operate as a capitalist market that is tied to the government. Their special economic zones operate in ways that even places like the US find under regulated. They have people running corporations and making billions in private capital, while investing their capital in shares/futures/etc markets. They are a capitalist country, they are also a dictatorship that ultimately controls everything. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

However they operate as a capitalist market that is tied to the government. Their special economic zones operate in ways that even places like the US find under regulated. They have people running corporations and making billions in private capital, while investing their capital in shares/futures/etc markets.

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

https://youtu.be/M4__IBd_sGE?si=AQOKB0e9RRIuIxhw

also a dictatorship that ultimately controls everything.

http://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgyw/202112/t20211204_10462468.htm

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Ok under the billionaires one it literally says it is mixes private business and capital investment as a venue that makes a strong economy due to pragmatism. They find it pragmatic to be capitalists when they want to make money and increase their capital holdings, because it make the economy better.

Great, ultimately, you get to vote for one party's offerings, and they get that appointment for life, and control a police/surveillance state. Great democracy there. Recently they have purged a lot of high ranking party members, due to graft, making them a paper tiger, of sorts, in a lot of their most important new weapons developments. Not dictatory at all.

Look, person, I do not think China is the big evil, as portrayed by western media. However they are a highly authoritarian police state, with a single party dominance, the head of which is a life time appointment. They also participate in capitalism, not the open, liberal, laissez faire type, but they have a class of capital owners, investing that capital to increase said capital holdings. They just have big brother standing behind them, hand on their shoulder, watching what they are doing.

I also do not like the capital colonialism of the west. If I had to choose to personally live under one, or the other, I would stay where I am, because I am not the personality type to conform, at least publicly, to the legal framework China practices. China is shittier than the west in some ways, and the west is shittier than China in others. Both are surveillance states, China has proven more proactive in targeting people who publicly diverge from their party line. Where I am I can openly say nearly anything about my government, and I won't be forced into a camp, and re-educated. We just have other prison industry issues. I am actually intimately aware of, as I used to do data analysis for the "corrections" system.

Basically, there are no "good guys".

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Honestly at this point it seems like you're not really engaging with the material: your more reasonable concerns are straight up addressed in the material listed.

Where I am I can openly say nearly anything about my government, and I won’t be forced into a camp, and re-educated.

Do you see this as a good thing? I'd rather live in a society that re-educated people who were saying Nazi shit tbh

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I absolutely believe I should be able to say what I will, about my government, without being fucked by the state. The fact that you can not see why that is a better way to live informs me of you authoritarianism. The reasons you should be curtailed are few and far between. Like I understand that if I say I am going to assassinate a poltico, that should be illegal, and things of this nature. Also, being a nazi is a non-sequitur to my statement. That goes far beyond talking shit about your own government. That requires action.

Yeah, I read them, and the way they are addressed doesn't sound good to me. I have read more in-depth pieces discussing the same things. Sorry, I am far too against the type of control they exercise. They practice a hierarchy that is even more rigid than where I am from, so that's not gonna work for me. I am an anti-authoritarian leftist, China does not jive well with me.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Okay, well your "anti-autboritarian" ideology gets anywhere you'll have my support, until then I'll support socialist projects that actually work within their limitations.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

And when your authoritarian ideology gets you something, that isn't a brutal police state, you will have my support. Until then I will support progressive movements, and incremental steps away from the right, and dictatorship.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

What progressive movements are deserving of your support, currently? When has incrementalism worked in keeping the far-right at bay?

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The right, in general, is not nearly as popular as it was when I was a kid. The current movement was started because they were losing ground in a way that was not recoverable. The minority has been orchestrating a take over for decades because they realize that their long term prospects are dire. This is an animal backed into a corner, fighting for it's life, and it is already seeing a massive, and growing backlash. The GOP is literally going bankrupt. This is despite stacking the courts, and other footholds they spent decades creating.

As for current incremental progressive causes I personally work on?

Changing the style of voting in my state from FTPT. It has already taken a couple states, and is growing in popularity across the country.
Reduction of drug draconian drug laws. Weed is very much on it's way to a federal legalization. More, and more, places have been working with decriminalization of hard drugs. I used to work in data analysis in the "corrections" system and it is definitely moving away from simply punishing non-violent criminals. Most municipalities now move people committing crimes for addiction into rehab, have been increasing the number of ways they will keep charges off your record for long term compliance with rehab, and sober living. There is also a growing movement towards these things outside of just addiction. The momentum is towards rehabilitation for most non-violent crimes. Healthcare reform. This one is more of a sleeper to those not working within organizations working towards it. When I became and adult there was literally no way for me to get any form of health coverage, at all, full stop. Now I can not only get coverage, it doesn't require things like a 25k deductible. Pricing cap legislation is being pushed, other price regulation for drugs is being pushed, and, despite it being one of the top three most heavily lobbied industries. The amount of the general public, and medical professionals, who support socialized healthcare has been growing.

As for the things I don't donate time time to work on, personally. The position minority communities are in is better than when I was a kid, even with recent regressive gains in some places, taken into consideration. These regressive movements are already under strong fire, and, even in deep red states, are not going to last. Even the courts they stacked are backing off on their support of the movement, because it is proving to be unpopular to the point they are being forced to choose the viability of their career, in the long term, over current clout that will likely not manifest the gains promised. This is combined with the USSC, and some other fed judges, having issues come to light that are sidetracking most of what they do, in order to just claw onto their position. Labor organization is the most popular it has been since the 40s. Labor organization has been making the biggest gains, both in terms of unionization of workers, and in the legal theater, since my father was born. The most popular candidate of the right is an absolute shit-show, and other than his minority-in-a-minority, cult of personality, is driving people away, and stressing the foundations of the party. Meanwhile the DNC is slowly deciding to pull it's head, at least somewhat, out of it's ass, and has dumped joe for the most progressive primary candidate we have had in a long time. She is also the first to hold that position, for a number of categories. Is she a leftist? No, not even close, I didn't even expect that as a possibility, however she is a step further left than what we have seen get the position of primary candidate. We actually, finally, have serious work towards judicial reform. Government immunity is also finally in the crosshairs of the majority of democrats.

I could go on. Compared to 40 years ago, a LOT of progressive legislation has happened, and the ones that saw the biggest attacks from the neo-liberals are, again, seeing massive resurgences in popularity. Even when you look at the youth that has decided to support right wing parties, when you ask them what they think think is needed to better their position in life, it is largely progressive desires, even though they don't seem to understand that. Every time I read surveys of that population, the vast majority of their issues are loss of workers rights, too much corporate control, not enough regulation against dangerous business practices, need for legal mandates to make more housing, and to keep artificial inflation down, unaffordable healthcare, the weakening of public education, especially in terms of the costs of university, wealth disparity, etc.

All of this is better than living under a dictatorship, you know, like a "democracy" that has one candidate, that gets appointed for life, and controls a police state, the likes of which Stalin couldn't have imagined.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Klear@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Try Eastern Europe then, before the fall of the communist regimes there. The environment got fucked hard by the commies here.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I wasn't arguing that point. I was saying China's new economy is a form of capitalism. Everyone can fuck things up. Who is the most vested country int he world in renewable/clean energy sources? China.

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago

ITT: The environmental consequences of precapitalistic modes of production confuse lemmies to defend a nonsense statement in a totally different paradigm.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Israel keeps massacring Gazans and yet the carbon emissions of the region aren't falling. I don't understand. I was told it was an overpopulation problem. What else could it be?

[-] Nicoleism101@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don’t even know if I want to argue anymore. Every endangered group needs a sanctuary. It’s like living museum. Curious and fascinating but thankfully with zero power or chance to get it.

Tho commies could clash with the alt right and both disappear while normal ppl live on

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Communists far-outweigh the number of alt right globally.

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I wish my hair looked like that

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
360 points (100.0% liked)

Communism

2251 readers
197 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS