I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
Our current model is driving the world off an ecological cliff. The externalities of free market capitalism are fast approaching and it should be clear as day to any rational person that it is a massive failure.
Lmao capitalism I literally the innovation engine behind all green and sustainable development.
Fun fact: socialists also burned coal and oil
Human ingenuity is the innovation engine behind all technological advancements. Capitalism stifled green tech for years, and still does, by putting way too much money in the hands of O and G companies who have had every motivation to do so to protect their business.
Lol capital is shifting non-green companies to be more sustainable, not the other way around.
Government subsidy is the driving force behind green technology. Capital has done everything in it’s power to fight it to protect its O and G investments. Capitalism is an anti-innovation machine.
Someone should tell capital that: https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/global/en/market-insights/gsam-connect/2022/Green_Capex_Capturing_the_Opportunities.html
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/10/10/Blog-connecting-the-dots-between-sustainable-finance-and-financial-stability
But what do I know I only work in an industry with a fuckload of green capital investment
An industry which sucks up government subsidy. An industry which would have never got off the ground without that subsidy. I guess you’re the real socialist considering your industry wouldn’t exist without all those government dollars, lol.
So wait capital is defined as “government subsidies?” You sure you’re not a capitalist?
Unironically, you know who gets too many subsidies? Small farmers. Kill the farm bill.
So your response to why would workers have no disputes is because pollution?
Well the idea that no workers would ever have any disputes was your contribution to the discussion, not a claim I ever made. Of course they would have disputes, and those disputes would be dealt with democratically. You like democracy, I assume?
My point in bringing up climate change is that people like to bring up the current system as a working model. But it doesn’t work at all. If we continue doing things the way we are we are cooked.
How many times has diplomacy ever solved a dispute? Munich 1938 is a great example on why they usually only delay the inevitable
Presumably it works some of the time. My country doesn’t descend into war every time there’s an election.
Those are not the disputes I’m talking about
Diplomacy is like an oxygen supply: You only notice it when it fails. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t generally work.
Like when?
You mean besides the decades the US and USSR didn’t blow the entire world to pieces or even enter direct conflict, which would likely have killed millions more than the proxy wars that occurred with diplomatic intervention? I’m sorry, I just can’t take anyone who truly thinks that diplomacy is always useless seriously. It strongly suggests they’ve never read a history book.
Nukes discouraging any escalation into war:
There are going to be multiple factors in any international relations situation. I’m sorry you don’t understand that.
I mean, do you have a genuinely better alternative than a democracy with some rules to prevent ogliarchys and protect citizens rights?
That’s definitely not the same as having no private property
If someone hates what you said they’re just stupid