Except that some of the absolute worst ecological tragedies in the modern world were done in socialist systems, largely because they were inefficient, central planning made it more effective, and people couldn’t say no or mitigate it. I honestly think that people use socialism as a catch-all to be a system where they can force through the changes they would prefer to see in the world.
Meanwhile, some of the most effective ecological mitigations of the modern world were done through legislation and regulation of a capitalist system. Example: the banning of CFCs and water management.
It’s largely our growth as a population that’s caused the issues and it requires drastic action at all levels to live within our means. We can live more sustainably and we are getting there but it does require an efficient system and an educated populous. That results in better regulations on markets that can account for externalities.
Poisoning the waterhole hurts everyone regardless of the system. There needs to be consequences put in place for doing so, and by the international nature of the problem, it requires treaties to get all systems aligned. That takes time and effort and we are getting there.
I think this goes back to my original question, obviously capitalism has had it’s disasters, that much is known, but at the same time you have disasters like Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Dzerzhinsk. I understand the USSR was not the ideal communist/socialist system, but it’s the most apparent we have (going back to my original question, I think?). I just feel like statements in OP are not the right rallying call if actual change is desired, as it implies we just need to shift to our current implementations of other systems. I think the only real answer, like I mentioned in other comments is to bypass current systems and investigate new options.
You’re suggesting heavy regulation of social and economic systems which is the entire point of socialism. You say socialism doesn’t work, but that is exactly what you’re describing.
And capitalism does not want to exist in a society of international regulation. Those concepts are at odds with one another.
The pure socialism people keep asking for hasn’t worked. It’s been taken over and corrupted throughout history.
Capitalism does not want socialist policies, but you can still force it to apply them. Because it’s not a god, a person, an all encompassing system, any of that. It’s a tool just like socialism should be treated.
If you like markets you might be more interested in learning about democratic market socialist countries and how they operate. The Nordics lean in that direction - after all, social democracy spawned out of orthodox marxism. The core idea in OG Nordic economics is simple: more democracy. You don’t need a min. wage, let unions bargain for their salaries, which is why McDonalds famously pays such a massive min. wage in Denmark. Fund and support democratically owned housing (housing coops, of which 20% of Norway resides in and still growing vs pop. growth despite no more gov. funding) or democratically run grocery stores (Finland has the highest density of consumer coops in the world) - housing coops usually have democratically agreed policies like not being able to treat your property like a commodity/investment by primarily renting it out (thus not contributing as much to rising housing prices), and consumer coops have been at the forefront of more environmentally and labour friendly behaviour. All the Nordics have worker board representation - workers make up a percentage of the board and help steer the company. There’s also the social wealth funds in Norway that give the government the power to guide corporations towards more ethical behaviour by owning significant amounts of shares in businesses, both domestically and internationally - although some argue Norway could learn from the Alaska SWF which pays its citizens dividends from the SWF. All of this builds towards economic democracy, or more commonly known as “socialism”, but in a way that has had great success. They’ve reeled some of those things back in recent decades, and the negative effects are clear to see - Norway stopping its funding of housing coops has meant a growing housing crisis much like the rest of Europe (with few exceptions, like Vienna (Austria) and Finland where socialised housing plays a bigger role).
It is absolutely not our growth as a population that has affected climate change. That’s capitalist doomer propaganda. Those actually responsible for it are the few at the top of capitalist hierarchies. Politicians, billionaires, oil and coal barons. Right now we van feed up to 11 billion people, yet there is still mass starvation and poverty. Capitalists require poverty so that people are desperate enough to work the shitty jobs the capitalists “create”.
As for the rest of what you said, I briefly touched upon this, but even CCP and USSR admitt(ed) they weren’t really communist, and whether they’re socialist is extremely debatable. They’re not communist because by their own admission they’re preparing for a communist world, but they keep saying that and it never comes about. These regimes lie constantly, but even if they lied rarely I’d still not believe they want actual communism because it’d involve giving up their power. What these states actually are is state capitalist.
They’re communist in the same way the Nazis were socialist, or the DPRK is a democratic republic: they’re not.
That’s the thing, you can never reach a full socialist system in the anarchist sense. Anything short is authoritarianism and that is what you propose we move towards. I am not disagreeing with you but you are missing the fact that those examples were absolutely trying and did try to get there.
Anarchism is fundamentally anti authoritarian so I don’t see how you think I’m proposing that.
The existence of a state and communism are an oxymoron. How can there be equality when there’s still a hierarchy? These nations were also nationalist, which is also at odds with communism. I get how it appears they tried and failed, as did other countries, but there attempts were just for show and don’t indicate that communism is impossible. In fact, humans have lived under what Marx called (though I don’t like the term) “primitive communism” since we first started walking on two feet.
But that being said, I have no idea how anarchism would work on a large scale like with the population of a city.
This is where I get really doomer and say my expectation is that as global warming and wars and famine and disease and authoritarian governments get worse the only places left that you can be free will be anarcho communes. Such a thing is possible in our modern day. Zapatista in Mexico and Rojava in Syria have achieved it as far as I can tell, but I have yet to look into how those communities are run. Rojava I know its situation is far from ideal with them having to make deals with devils, like to give America oil rights. Living in Canada myself I can find a comnune on ic.org to join. Though admittedly I haven’t looked into that past skimming their website.
Well, I’ve been to one of the ones you mention and it’s largely corporate. I’m not sure what you’re expecting out of geopolitics. Social science says that trust breaks down inherently with organizations larger than about 300 people. You can argue against pretty structures all you want but all you end up is at the whim of those that prepare for them. Go be in a commune. See what it’s like. I mean that wholeheartedly. There’s nothing sustainable about it but it is an interesting experience.
Except that some of the absolute worst ecological tragedies in the modern world were done in socialist systems, largely because they were inefficient, central planning made it more effective, and people couldn’t say no or mitigate it. I honestly think that people use socialism as a catch-all to be a system where they can force through the changes they would prefer to see in the world.
Meanwhile, some of the most effective ecological mitigations of the modern world were done through legislation and regulation of a capitalist system. Example: the banning of CFCs and water management.
It’s largely our growth as a population that’s caused the issues and it requires drastic action at all levels to live within our means. We can live more sustainably and we are getting there but it does require an efficient system and an educated populous. That results in better regulations on markets that can account for externalities.
Poisoning the waterhole hurts everyone regardless of the system. There needs to be consequences put in place for doing so, and by the international nature of the problem, it requires treaties to get all systems aligned. That takes time and effort and we are getting there.
The Dust Bowl. Exxon Valdez. Deepwater Horizon.
I think this goes back to my original question, obviously capitalism has had it’s disasters, that much is known, but at the same time you have disasters like Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Dzerzhinsk. I understand the USSR was not the ideal communist/socialist system, but it’s the most apparent we have (going back to my original question, I think?). I just feel like statements in OP are not the right rallying call if actual change is desired, as it implies we just need to shift to our current implementations of other systems. I think the only real answer, like I mentioned in other comments is to bypass current systems and investigate new options.
You’re suggesting heavy regulation of social and economic systems which is the entire point of socialism. You say socialism doesn’t work, but that is exactly what you’re describing.
And capitalism does not want to exist in a society of international regulation. Those concepts are at odds with one another.
The pure socialism people keep asking for hasn’t worked. It’s been taken over and corrupted throughout history.
Capitalism does not want socialist policies, but you can still force it to apply them. Because it’s not a god, a person, an all encompassing system, any of that. It’s a tool just like socialism should be treated.
If you like markets you might be more interested in learning about democratic market socialist countries and how they operate. The Nordics lean in that direction - after all, social democracy spawned out of orthodox marxism. The core idea in OG Nordic economics is simple: more democracy. You don’t need a min. wage, let unions bargain for their salaries, which is why McDonalds famously pays such a massive min. wage in Denmark. Fund and support democratically owned housing (housing coops, of which 20% of Norway resides in and still growing vs pop. growth despite no more gov. funding) or democratically run grocery stores (Finland has the highest density of consumer coops in the world) - housing coops usually have democratically agreed policies like not being able to treat your property like a commodity/investment by primarily renting it out (thus not contributing as much to rising housing prices), and consumer coops have been at the forefront of more environmentally and labour friendly behaviour. All the Nordics have worker board representation - workers make up a percentage of the board and help steer the company. There’s also the social wealth funds in Norway that give the government the power to guide corporations towards more ethical behaviour by owning significant amounts of shares in businesses, both domestically and internationally - although some argue Norway could learn from the Alaska SWF which pays its citizens dividends from the SWF. All of this builds towards economic democracy, or more commonly known as “socialism”, but in a way that has had great success. They’ve reeled some of those things back in recent decades, and the negative effects are clear to see - Norway stopping its funding of housing coops has meant a growing housing crisis much like the rest of Europe (with few exceptions, like Vienna (Austria) and Finland where socialised housing plays a bigger role).
It is absolutely not our growth as a population that has affected climate change. That’s capitalist doomer propaganda. Those actually responsible for it are the few at the top of capitalist hierarchies. Politicians, billionaires, oil and coal barons. Right now we van feed up to 11 billion people, yet there is still mass starvation and poverty. Capitalists require poverty so that people are desperate enough to work the shitty jobs the capitalists “create”.
As for the rest of what you said, I briefly touched upon this, but even CCP and USSR admitt(ed) they weren’t really communist, and whether they’re socialist is extremely debatable. They’re not communist because by their own admission they’re preparing for a communist world, but they keep saying that and it never comes about. These regimes lie constantly, but even if they lied rarely I’d still not believe they want actual communism because it’d involve giving up their power. What these states actually are is state capitalist.
They’re communist in the same way the Nazis were socialist, or the DPRK is a democratic republic: they’re not.
That’s the thing, you can never reach a full socialist system in the anarchist sense. Anything short is authoritarianism and that is what you propose we move towards. I am not disagreeing with you but you are missing the fact that those examples were absolutely trying and did try to get there.
Anarchism is fundamentally anti authoritarian so I don’t see how you think I’m proposing that.
The existence of a state and communism are an oxymoron. How can there be equality when there’s still a hierarchy? These nations were also nationalist, which is also at odds with communism. I get how it appears they tried and failed, as did other countries, but there attempts were just for show and don’t indicate that communism is impossible. In fact, humans have lived under what Marx called (though I don’t like the term) “primitive communism” since we first started walking on two feet.
But that being said, I have no idea how anarchism would work on a large scale like with the population of a city.
This is where I get really doomer and say my expectation is that as global warming and wars and famine and disease and authoritarian governments get worse the only places left that you can be free will be anarcho communes. Such a thing is possible in our modern day. Zapatista in Mexico and Rojava in Syria have achieved it as far as I can tell, but I have yet to look into how those communities are run. Rojava I know its situation is far from ideal with them having to make deals with devils, like to give America oil rights. Living in Canada myself I can find a comnune on ic.org to join. Though admittedly I haven’t looked into that past skimming their website.
Well, I’ve been to one of the ones you mention and it’s largely corporate. I’m not sure what you’re expecting out of geopolitics. Social science says that trust breaks down inherently with organizations larger than about 300 people. You can argue against pretty structures all you want but all you end up is at the whim of those that prepare for them. Go be in a commune. See what it’s like. I mean that wholeheartedly. There’s nothing sustainable about it but it is an interesting experience.