Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
TechNippon

(All) Feasibility of dismantling Capitalism for climate action

Capitalism is making it harder for climate action to achieve the goal of 40% CO2 reduction. People are proposing to abandon capitalism in order to more easily. I totally get how they think. It would be simply amazing if the world has planned economies and is able to reduce consumption at will without destroying the economy with a recession in the process, but remember, we only have until 2030 to reduce emissions. Not to mention every country has to make the transition at the same time because tragedy of the commons.

By the way, my flair is "Eco-Socialist" and I am not in favor of completely dismantling capitalism, but instead nationalizing key industries, such as fossil fuel, transport, energy, forestry, mining, etc..

Posted Sep 10, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

099
nikolakis7Geosocial :rose:🔰 Solarpunk •

The US needs to pull its weight. The US military has a carbon footprint larger than all of Finland, Hungary, Morocco or Peru. A lot of Chinese industry (and thus pollution) is geared towards export to the US.

Fossil fuels need to stop being subsidised, which would cause oil prices to increase. Car culture needs to be replaced with more ecofriendly modes of transport.

I'd say many social democratic countries in Europe are on the right path towards a more sustainable future. But they are small, and having the second biggest emitter flip flop between denying climate change exists and half-heartedly decelerating emissions moreless completely nullifies their efforts.

5
Hell_ya_I_am_alive•

Car culture can stay. The cars are what should change.

1†
TheMikeyMac13•

Is 2030 the last gasp date now? That has been a moving target for a very long time.

5
DeepBlueNemoMarxist-Leninist•

I love how our environment has gotten progressively worse over the years and yet rightoids still pretend climate change is nothing to worry about because the world didn't literally explode after some date or another.

Christ we'll be seeing a world where entire continents have been depopulated of human life but there'll still be right wingers sneering, "You said we had until 2030 to solve climate change, but we're still here (minus Australia)! Stop worrying!"

1
TheMikeyMac13•

I’m not saying we shouldn’t worry, or that the environment should not be cleaned up as well as possible, but the fear mongering loses people.

Al Gore talks about how bad things are, but flies in jets and owns houses so big they use the energy of many smaller houses.

Obama talks about how little time we have left, then buys a coastal estate.

The crowd would be more receptive without the dates that keep changing.

2
DeepBlueNemoMarxist-Leninist•

I would disagree. I’d say the problem is we haven’t truly accepted how fucked we all are. While climate change is dangerous, the approach by activists is to, in my view, treat it as a managed panic. “It’s bad, but it’s time for us to roll up our sleeves and get serious.” This gives people an out, a little bit of hope we can cling onto to imagine at the last second we’ll save ourselves. That hope is an impediment to getting anything done.

I think only when people become convinced that climate change will kill them, personally, that things will get done. Fear is a far better motivator than hope.

1
TheMikeyMac13•

Well understand this, and I say this as a person who supports most of our efforts to clean up, (although I don’t want the higher fuel economy standards to kill sports cars again) we have to play the hand we have in front of us.

People vote their circumstances. How are they able to care for their kids? What is crime like? Are they working? I know people who would destroy the economy to save the planet and I am here to tell you that won’t happen because politicians know what will happen if they do:

People would vote those politicians out, and more economically friendly (and sane) politicians would win instead, and the effort to clean up the environment suffers. Because the pitchforks and torches come out when people start to hurt because of what was done, and politicians know it.

And I am 49. I remember the talk in the 70’s of the coming ice age, and it didn’t happen. Then on the 80’s and 90’s it was global warming. Then we had a couple of cooler years and it started being called climate change.

And I have seen predictions the entire time, go back and watch Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore said in 2009 that all arctic ice would be gone in five to seven years. It didn’t happen. Florida is still above water.

I agree that we need to improve how we do a lot of things with regards to o the environment, but a lot of people don’t believe you and they get to vote as well. And these predictions cause damage. It provides the other side a win, every single time another one passes.

And I know how fucked we are, I promise I do. We can’t avoid what is coming, the ice was always going to melt. And the average temperature is going to get a lot higher, and it always was.

And at some point long in the future when we are all gone, the ice will come back, and our plastic will still be here.

2
TechNipponOPEco-Socialist•

The previous last gasp date is already over. We now have wildfires and storms. There is no such thing as another last gasp date since all we are doing right now is to mitigate climate change's effect. 2030 is just a number to show us how fast we need to lessen emissions

0†
TheMikeyMac13•

Well then why say we only have until 2030?

That date won’t be relevant in lasting human history any more than any other date thrown around.

Having an every forward moving date like that loses a lot of people in the crowd.

Better to stick to what is thought to be true by scientists say about it, that it is an estimate based on current carbon pollution when we will exceed a temperature threshold that will be painful.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/2030-or-bust-what-is-the-importance-of-the-year-2030-climatewise/

I don’t like seeing it stated as 2030 or bust, because it isn’t. We might hit that temp threshold sooner, or later.

And the planet was always going to warm anyway, humans have been on a ticking clock since we showed up.

6
AtlasreturnsTechnocracy•

I don’t like seeing it stated as 2030 or bust, because it isn’t. We might hit that temp threshold sooner, or later.

Considering that global emission before the pandemic were rising and will most likely be rising when it's over it most likely will be sooner.

And I think the most important information you can draw from that article is that our time is even more limited then it seems because you can't just simply keep producing emissions for the next 7 years and then do a crash change in the last 3.

1
OrgalorgLives•

Oh, now we have wildfires and storms.

3
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Yeah duh. We literally just invented those words like a decade ago because of climate change.

2
Phanes7Bourgeois•

The previous last gasp date is already over. We now have wildfires and storms.

Which we have always had. Can you point to data that such things are getting worse?

Also, look into forestry management, many of the fires on the west coast were much worse because they are not managing their land well.

1
Fando1234•

I think you make a key point around feasibility to do this by 2030.

If this sub shows nothing else, not everyone is on board with a planned economy (and with good reason). To get people to agree with overhauling capitalism will take more than 10 years itself.

I'm probably more of a capitalist myself - though I actually favour a mixed economy. But I agree with you, target specific industries to regulate. Remove harmful subsidies. Change public perception. Add a carbon tax. Sign global deals to confront this immediate threat.

And we can go back to our heated, academic, arguments about socialism Vs capitalism once we've countered this existential crisis.

3
YodamortSkirt and Sock Socialism•

Target specific industries to regulate. Remove harmful subsidies. Change public perception. Add a carbon tax. Sign global deals to confront this immediate threat.

Capitalism has had a very, very long time to do this and hasn't on any relevant scale. Why would it change now? Not to mention that all that literally is not enough.

I return to the words of Engels and Rosa:

If the whole of modern society is not to perish, a revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place.

Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism.

Capitalism cannot and will not stop the climate crisis, because it is against its nature to do so. The only feasible option for doing anything about climate change is to put a stop to capitalistic environmental destruction by force.

Unfortunately, thanks to centuries of propaganda, the world sees "socialism or barbarism" and chooses barbarism. I have little hope for the future; or rather, wholly believe that tens or hundreds of millions will die before people realise that capitalism cannot continue killing us all.

Socialism is inevitable, but so is environmental collapse under capitalism. The question is, which comes first?

1
clever_-name•

tens or hundreds of millions will die before people realise that capitalism cannot continue killing us all.

That actually happens to be the number of people killed by their own governments in the last 100 years in countries that call themselves socialists depending on source.

0
CapitalismIsForCucksRadikale Sosialister•

Bad bot

0
WhyNotCollegeBoard•

Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99995% sure that clever_-name is not a bot.

^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) ^(Optout) ^(|) ^(Original Github)

2
Fando1234•

Intelligent regulation and a carbon tax is all you need. I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. People should unite in pressuring governments to push through some smart climate related bills.

-1
YodamortSkirt and Sock Socialism•

Those things objectively are not enough, and even if they were they still wouldn't happen on a big enough scale under capitalism to actually be relevant.

People up here voted for Justin Trudeau multiple times on the promise that he would do something about climate change (among other things ofc)

He passed a shitty climate tax that accomplished nothing except make life harder for the poor while the rich continued doing things as they usually do, as carbon taxes tend to, and then continued pushing to expand oil pipelines.

Profit always comes first for capitalism, by its very nature. Even if some mild concessions are given, they'll be declawed and/or snatched back the moment the opportunity arises.

1
Fando1234•

I think if you randomly asked 100 different people on this sub what the nature of capitalism is, you'd get 100 different answers.

To me it's the ownership of property and the means of production in private hands, - as opposed to the state. Ie if I have an idea, or create something, it's my property and I can choose what to do with it. Modify it, sell it, give it away for free.

The system has its flaws, but I don't see these failings as endemic or unsolvable within a mixed economy. And capitalism 'by its nature' is more flexible and less prone to corruption.

You'll no doubt disagree, but herein is the problem. We could argue about this all century. I can post virtues, you'll post criticisms, I'll criticise communism, you'll respond to those criticisms.

As OP rightly states. We have a very finite amount of time to solve this issue.

If you're stated position is that 'hundreds of thousands or millions of people need to die' before we see change. Then I'm afraid I'd have to politely disagree. There are great organisations doing work to mitigate green house gases. There are climate scientists giving us challenging, but achievable, goals.

A lot of evidence actually points to propoganda from oil and gas companies leading to the belief it seems you have... Ie "we're all fucked. It's too late to do anything. Might as well just get depressed and angry and wait for the end".

There is something we can do. Tax carbon. And cut out meaningless consumption (fast fashion, dirt cheap flights, inefficient houses, petrol powered cars). Oil companies just don't like that. So they try and convince people there's nothing they can do, so they don't support good policy.

1
DeepBlueNemoMarxist-Leninist•

I'm sure the government that fought over whether to let workers starve during a pandemic will start passing carbon taxes and regulations any day now...

1
CapitalismIsForCucksRadikale Sosialister•

You’re not a capitalist if you want to regulate any industries. That’s not free market bruh. We need to let lose give corporate free reigns to rape pillage and do whatever they like then we got true capitalistm

0
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

So what happens at 2030? And if we don't have time, why even bother? Let's just live our best lives.

2
SkinnyTyrant•

There won’t be some direct consequence that’s purely because we missed a time limit like in a video game lol.

There’s gonna more natural disasters because of more extreme weather because of ya boi global warming. Living our best lives is leaving the kids we brought up and their kids with the short straw

1
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Idgaf about them kids

1
SkinnyTyrant•

Kinda myopic but to each their own I guess

1
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Not really. Why I should I care about what happens after I'm gone?

1
CapitalismIsForCucksRadikale Sosialister•

Live out best lives. To do so we’d need to eradicate the bourgeoisie. Because if you think this is the best life now you have a very narrow view and you’ve already succumbed to your existence as a slave

0
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Didn't you try insulting my intelligence the other day but wouldn't help me understand anything? I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.

And no, I'm not living my best life yet. But I'm actively taking steps to get there. I don't blame my problems on others, I solve my own problems.

1
CapitalismIsForCucksRadikale Sosialister•

If you truly wanna be a part of something meaningful and change your horrid beliefs I will take you in under my wing and show you how to support your fellow man not be a part of a group who’s ideology is detrimental to all

1
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

I am part of meaningful things already, so I'm not sure what you mean. I also don't know what "horrid beliefs" I have. Perhaps you could tell me?

And I'm pretty sure I do support my fellow man, at least the non profits I donate to and volunteer for think so.

1
CapitalismIsForCucksRadikale Sosialister•

I didn’t say anything based on intelligence right now. Also you only asked me what it meant that you’re a bourgeoisie apologist and I explained

0
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Oh, maybe you didn't see it. Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/pkezwn/can_someone_who_is_antiwork_please_explain_to_me/hch09q5?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

And I'm a little confused here as to why your blaming problems with your life on others. Have you taken any steps to improve your situation?

1
SkinnyTyrant•

If you’re not in favour of dismantling capitalism then you aren’t a Socialist. Socialists do not believe in capitalist reform and do not have a huge focus on electoral strategy most of the time. Even the more moderate Democratic-Socialists (not to be confused with social democrats) believe in at least voting capitalism out which you can’t really do.

If you’re focused on bringing about reforms within the capitalist system through voting and such, then you’re a social-democrat by definition.

You calling yourself a socialist is the same as me calling myself a communist because I once shared a snickers bar with someone, it’s inaccurate.

2
Lawrence_Drake•

Preventing people from trading with each other isn't going to change the average temperature of the world.

1
[deleted]•

Trading baseball cards or intensive hydrocarbon based activity?

1
Kradek501•

Yep, Climate change is a pricing issue. Markets not capitalism can solve the problem

1
[deleted]•

It’s going to require the type of mass mobilization we haven’t seen since ww2. Whole sectors of the economy are going to need to be redirected into geo engineering, carbon sequestration, restoring the health of our oceans and tropic forests, moving crop belts, developing new technology like fusion energy and dealing with millions of refugees on the move.

1
Phanes7Bourgeois•

What does "dismantling capitalism" mean?

How would nationalizing fossil fuel reduce emissions in an impactful way?

Why not use existing incentive structures to foster nuclear & net gen geothermal for power generation & move ag towards a system of regenerative ag?

What does a 40% reduction in CO2 actually look like on the ground? Does it devastate our economy?

Most wealthy countries are flatlining their carbon, how do you propose we get China and all the other developing countries in line?

This conversation is always filled with hand-waiving, even just to agree upon basic facts.

1
Sourkarate:hammersickle: Marx's personal trainer•

It's currently unfeasible to dismantle capitalism for any reason so the idea that we do it on the basis of climate change is even more asinine. Especially if we only have nine years to do so. You can't even get the centrist heroes in the democrats to meaningfully raise minimum wage in that short of a span.

1
Calamity__Bane•

It is not feasible, only a world war or nuclear winter can save us now.

1
Acrobatic-Eagle6705•

Just tell the neocons that Russia will become more powerful if global warming occurs.

1
AMechanicumSpace monarchist•

Fossil fuels is cheaper source of energy, in any system. Changing "isms" not gonna change that.

0†
TechNipponOPEco-Socialist•

Well yes but changing isms will enable you to not choose the cheapest source of energy.

2†
Waterman_619just text•

Which socialist country has stopped using fossil fuels?

5
SSPMemeGuy•

China is 9 years ahead of schedule of its Paris climate agreement pledges whilst the USA until last year had left the fucking thing lol.

2†
Waterman_619just text•

Can you provide the source for the China schedule part? I am presuming you have some report from United Nations or some global body like that.

4
frodo_mintoffLibertarian•

Apparently China is possibly ahead of it's Paris climate pledge, how far ahead I couldnt' specifically acertain, but it does seem somewhat on track to meeting it's targets.

The targets themselves however, are regarded as "Highly Insufficent" according to https://climateactiontracker.org/. This means that the policies are highly inconsistent with the Paris agreement's target of an acceptable warming threshold of 2 degrees celsius.

The problem with the Paris agreement is that countries were allowed to set their own targets which means utllmately, little definivative progress has been made.

4
Keiretsu_Inc:ancap: Industrialist•

I work with Chinese suppliers every day - they'll meet all kinds of requirements on paper, but it means nothing.

4
TheMikeyMac13•

You do know that the UN said that the US is doing so well in cleaning up that it probably doesn’t need the climate accords?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2020/12/10/the-un-makes-the-case-for-the-us-to-stay-out-of-the-paris-climate-accord/amp/

And that China’s emissions are growing?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-carbon-emissions-grow-at-fastest-rate-for-more-than-a-decade

3
Daily_the_Project21:yellowstar:•

Which didn't matter since the US still lowered it's emissions.

1
xfritz5375:redstar: Postmodern Hegelian Freudo-Marxist Gramscist•

Which socialist country has been able to isolate itself from having to compete with other countries on the world stage? As long as socialist countries have to compete with capitalist ones, which will be true as long as capitalism is the dominant global system, they will be limited.

0
AMechanicumSpace monarchist•

Policies and laws are doing this, they can be changed without "ism" change. Germany energy madness is happening without them being a socialist country.

1
AtlasreturnsTechnocracy•

That isn't actually true, even right now renewable energies already undercut fossil energy.^

Generally the idea that environmentalism is a money sink is really not applying anymore. Renewables provide much more jobs compared to traditional energy production^ and a more destabilized climate will lead to an increase in costly disasters ^

Obviously there are still issues like problems that we'd have to solve but overall the idea that changing to a more environmental friendly industry and society is not economically viable isn't really true.

We have the technology and we have the solutions. But we are basically failing at a systematic level to realize them.

1
AMechanicumSpace monarchist•

undercut fossil energy

provide much more jobs compared to traditional energy production

That's quite mutually exclusive or I'm missing something?

IRENA seems concentrated on wind and solar which can't be used as major source of energy because they aren't reliable i.e. they don't work at night without wind. Barely mentioning hydro(literally 1 word for reliable renewable lol) and not mentioning nuclear at all.

2
AtlasreturnsTechnocracy•

Less cost more workplaces.

Well the challenge of a renewable energy grid is to create enough storage facilities and diversity in the energy production. Also I didn't try to make a point about which energy is better but purely that renewables are more cost efficient than fossil fuels.

1
AMechanicumSpace monarchist•

Less cost more workplaces.

As I said, mutually exclusive unless there is something else. More workspaces costing less can mean one thing, small payment workplaces.

Storage facilities kill some of "greennessness" also driving costs up.

1
CaliphOfGod•

CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT BE STOPPED..... because the climate has always changed on earth... over eons.... as such... this is just being used by some to demand control and power over others.

The only solution to oil is... FREE ENERGY.... nothing less than fusion can solve this problem... or going full nuclear fission.

0
j-mo37:circlea: Anarchist•

“We’re all gonna die unless you give all your power and rights away to the government.”

I can’t do it with eco-fascists anymore.

-2†
AtlasreturnsTechnocracy•

The private sector had the knowledge about this crisis for more than 40 years and did nothing. What makes you believe that they will now suddenly change their behavior?

1
j-mo37:circlea: Anarchist•

What makes you think that the government can solve the problem or that they won’t misuse the additional power you will have to give them?

0
DeepBlueNemoMarxist-Leninist•

There's literally no other option. The only way to solve climate change is through the state and state alone. Besides its hardly like stepping on the throat of oil companies somehow restricts the average person's freedom.

0
j-mo37:circlea: Anarchist•

But how exactly will the state solve it? What policies? How do you get governments around the world to accept these policies? You need more than just the US and Europe’s buy-in.

0
spykids70:ancap: Rothbardian-Moral Skeptist.•

Based anarchist.

0
benignoakfiscal conservative•

Scientifically global warming is desirable

-7
xfritz5375:redstar: Postmodern Hegelian Freudo-Marxist Gramscist•

Wtf no it’s not

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
TheMikeyMac13•

It can’t be prevented anyway, the planet warms and the planet cools.

We are in the tail end of the most recent ice age, and that ice was always and will always melt. And then at some point (probably after humans are gone from this planet) the ice will return.

Solar power can slow it, but it was never going to stop it.

-1
xfritz5375:redstar: Postmodern Hegelian Freudo-Marxist Gramscist•

Except global temperature since humans have been around has increased at an unprecedented rate. It has nothing to do with the normal fluctuations in temperature.

1
TheMikeyMac13•

I’m not saying it doesn’t, just that it was going to happen anyway, just more slowly.

We are just speeding up something that was never going to be avoided in the long run.

0
xfritz5375:redstar: Postmodern Hegelian Freudo-Marxist Gramscist•

We’re not speeding it up. We’re going past where it naturally would have ever gone.

3