• philluminati@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Only socialism and communism try to ensure everyone survives. This isn’t really an attack on capitalism. This is also the reason we have nationalism, racism etc, no?

    In any case, technology and efficiency mean we could support more people being alive and with better lives if we really did want to. Plus there’s the potential of mining and colonisation of space. We’ve barely scratched the surface. Vertical farms might be the future.

    • Ruxias@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The pitfalls of our current systems preclude us getting to the point of utilizing space to any meaningful extent. Better to forgo the hypothetical Star Trek romanticized fiction and just fix what we have here; then maybe we can think about that stuff.

      At this stage, the mere mention of any such possibility is a distraction from the gravity of the situations we face. It’s a mere tool to keep the apple cart going, while people are literally dying from our own collective hubris.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Better to forgo the hypothetical Star Trek romanticized fiction

        As old Star Wars EU fan, I agree.

        Jokes aside, yes, anything done in space is for now much less efficient.

    • silentashes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that wouldn’t generate as much profit, see! You gotta have Scarcity, otherwise ya cannot jack up the prices so high!

      also: permaculture regenerative agriculture ecological stability dynamic equilibrium etc

      also, news: India’s regenerative water permaculture development

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Vertical farms might be the future.

      WDYM “might”, it’s already happening, just slowly. Not every modern city has lots of skyscrapers.

      Plus there’s the potential of mining and colonisation of space.

      Very limited. Though I like the idea of toroid stations with mirrors in L points, like Stanford torus, which is IIRC not considered cool now due to being expensive and complex to build.

      Maybe not toroid, but asymmetric rotating pendulum-like thing, with another end being ballast. For gravity.

      Anyway, you don’t realize how much less efficiency existing on Earth requires. It’s really easier to fix our shit here before going into space. Space is so cool that it’s worth the effort, but real colonization doesn’t make sense economically yet.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only socialism and communism try to ensure everyone survives.

      Except for the “enemies of the people” and the “bourgeoisie”, right?..

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That might be the stated intent, but it seems plain that once the leaders are in positions of power and authority, they abuse their power. This is why, as fallible as is democracy, it is superior.

      I would also contend that the outcomes for those living under communism are vastly inferior to those living under capitalism. I’ve always been bemused by arguments that all the repeated attempts “don’t count,” as though seventh time is the charm and suddenly the major issues will be worked out.

      • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would also contend that the outcomes for those living under communism are vastly inferior to those living under capitalism.

        You’re wrong. Socialism objectively provides a higher physical quality of life to its citizens when compared to capitalism at an equal level of development.

        The notion that there are no corruption issues in capitalist countries is also bizarre. Are you perpetually anglo-brained in that you only think of the western imperial core when you think about “capitalism”? You are ignoring most of the world.

        20million people die to easily preventable things under capitalism around the world every single year. Hunger, clean water, curable disease. Things that we can solve immediately with the resources we already have simply by having leadership that decides to do so. The fact you think this is reasonable is frankly disgusting.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re wrong. Socialism objectively provides a higher physical quality of life to its citizens when compared to capitalism at an equal level of development.

          That’s a pretty big switcheroo there. Communism isn’t socialism, and the socialism as described in the link is called democratic socialism. I.e. democracy with redistribution. Which all Western countries practise. Your link reinforces my premise.

          The notion that there are no corruption issues in capitalist countries is also bizarre.

          Nobody claimed that. You keep making up straw men. We’d have a more productive discussion if you just replied to what I wrote.

          20million people die to easily preventable things under capitalism around the world every single year.

          That the rate of hunger has dropped precipitously while population has exploded in the most impoverished regions is testament to the incredible achievement of capitalism. Child mortality is at an all time low. You’re arguing that because things aren’t perfect, capitalism is bad. Clearly the world isn’t so black and white. No system of resource allocation is perfect, least of all communism.

          But really this isn’t about capitalism. It’s about politics. We can choose to tax people more and redistribute locally and abroad. We choose that when we vote. Capitalism just ensures we have lots of resources and products and services.

          • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s a pretty big switcheroo there. Communism isn’t socialism, and the socialism as described in the link is called democratic socialism. I.e. democracy with redistribution. Which all Western countries practise. Your link reinforces my premise.

            This is ideological illiteracy. Socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. All communist states have been socialist states because no society has progressed far enough to reach communism.

            Nobody claimed that. You keep making up straw men. We’d have a more productive discussion if you just replied to what I wrote.

            The implication was that it is worse in communist countries.

            That the rate of hunger has dropped precipitously while population has exploded in the most impoverished regions is testament to the incredible achievement of capitalism. Child mortality is at an all time low. You’re arguing that because things aren’t perfect, capitalism is bad. Clearly the world isn’t so black and white. No system of resource allocation is perfect, least of all communism.

            Take China out of that data and it practically flatlines. It has not improved in capitalist countries, China is responsible for almost all of it.

            But really this isn’t about capitalism. It’s about politics. We can choose to tax people more and redistribute locally and abroad. We choose that when we vote. Capitalism just ensures we have lots of resources and products and services.

            If that were fucking possible under capitalism it would ALREADY BE HAPPENING. The parties presented to you under BOURGEOISE DEMOCRACY are BOURGEOISE parties. They are not parties of the people, they are parties of the bourgeoisie and the entire system is designed to maintain that. When your only options are parties of the bourgeoisie the outcome is that the winner represents the bourgeoisie.

            The only solution to this problem is to overthrow the existing bourgeoise democracy and install a proletarian democracy instead, the result of which being that all the parties under the proletarian democracy represent the proletariat. This is what a socialist state is institutionally. The antithesis of a capitalist state institutionally.

            • JasSmith@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is ideological illiteracy. Socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. All communist states have been socialist states because no society has progressed far enough to reach communism.

              You claim me to be “ideologically illiterate,” then go on to agree with me that socialism isn’t communism. That doesn’t speak well of your reading comprehension or intentions.

              The implication was that it is worse in communist countries.

              I didn’t make any claims about corruption. My claims are with outcomes, which I maintain are worse under communism.

              Take China out of that data and it practically flatlines. It has not improved in capitalist countries, China is responsible for almost all of it.

              Child mortality has trended down over the last century in almost every capitalist nation, not just China. Even the really corrupt African nations.

              If that were fucking possible under capitalism it would ALREADY BE HAPPENING.

              No, and this is the central argumentative failure under this dogma. Maybe people just don’t want mass redistribution? Maybe what you want isn’t what everyone else wants? Is that really so hard to accept as a possible reality? The Frankfurt School accepted this in the 1930s under the premise that “people’s lives are just too good under capitalism to ever want to move to communism.”

              • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You claim me to be “ideologically illiterate,” then go on to agree with me that socialism isn’t communism. That doesn’t speak well of your reading comprehension or intentions.

                Two sides of the same coin. Socialists all understand that socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism.

                I didn’t make any claims about corruption. My claims are with outcomes, which I maintain are worse under communism.

                Prove it. I cited research that shows you are wrong, you’re simply ignoring the facts.

                Child mortality has trended down over the last century in almost every capitalist nation, not just China. Even the really corrupt African nations.

                Wow one data point! Incredible. Now do deaths from starvation, lack of clean water and curable disease. 20million die per year.

                No, and this is the central argumentative failure under this dogma. Maybe people just don’t want mass redistribution? Maybe what you want isn’t what everyone else wants? Is that really so hard to accept as a possible reality? The Frankfurt School accepted this in the 1930s under the premise that “people’s lives are just too good under capitalism to ever want to move to communism.”

                Holy shit your argument is “I don’t want these people to live so it’s ok”. Colonial brained monster.

                • JasSmith@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Two sides of the same coin. Socialists all understand that socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism.

                  We continue to agree: they are not the same. Particularly democratic socialism.

                  Prove it. I cited research that shows you are wrong, you’re simply ignoring the facts.

                  The cited research relied on national reported statistics in its methodology. North Korea just isn’t a reliable source. Neither is China; which, by the way, is also classified as a socialist country. Further, the researchers normalised income, which radically altered the conclusion. Without doing that, the capitalist countries win by a country mile. You would have known that had you actually read the study you cited.

                  To defend my premise, I would like like to cite all former and current communist countries, including:

                  Korea, Democratic Peoples Rep. (North Korea)
                  Armenia
                  Azerbaijan
                  China
                  Georgia
                  Kazakhstan
                  Kyrgyzstan
                  Laos, Peoples Democratic Republic
                  Mongolia
                  Nepal
                  Tajikistan
                  Tibet
                  Uzbekistan
                  Vietnam
                  Armenia
                  Azerbaijan
                  China
                  Georgia
                  Kazakhstan
                  Kyrgyzstan
                  Laos, Peoples Democratic Republic
                  Mongolia
                  Nepal
                  Russia
                  Tajikistan
                  Tibet
                  Turkmenistan
                  Uzbekistan
                  Vietnam
                  Europe
                  Albania
                  Belarus
                  Bosnia & Herzegovina (Yugoslavia)
                  Bulgaria
                  Croatia (Yugoslavia)
                  Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia)
                  Estonia
                  Finland
                  Germany (German Democratic Republic)
                  Greece
                  Hungary
                  Latvia
                  Lithuania
                  Macedonia, FYR (Yugoslavia)
                  Moldova
                  Montenegro (Yugoslavia)
                  Poland
                  Romania
                  Serbia (Yugoslavia)
                  Slovakia (Czechoslovakia)
                  Slovenia (Yugoslavia)
                  Spain
                  Ukraine
                  Angola
                  Ethiopia
                  Mozambique
                  Colombia
                  Cuba
                  Nicaragua
                  Peru

                  Most of these countries are doing much better since eliminating communism. The data is irrefutable.

                  Wow one data point! Incredible. Now do deaths from starvation, lack of clean water and curable disease. 20million die per year.

                  I literally cited global hunger rates. I encourage you to read my comments above to refresh your memory.

                  Global access to clean water has been trending up for more than a century.

                  Child deaths from pneumonia.

                  Diarrheal deaths in children.

                  Disease burden from communicable, maternal, neonatal & nutritional diseases.

                  I could do this all day, but you made the claim. Let’s see some evidence that capitalist nations do worse than communist nations.

                  Holy shit your argument is “I don’t want these people to live so it’s ok”. Colonial brained monster.

                  Once again, creating straw men. No one argued for killing anyone. Do you do his because your argument is weak? Does that normally work for you?

      • Ruxias@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That might be the stated intent, but it seems plain that once the leaders are in positions of power and authority, they abuse their power. This is why, as fallible as is democracy, it is superior.

        Do you think that socialism/communism is not a democratic system?

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under communism, no. Marx explicitly prescribed violent revolution to overthrow democracy. He prescribes implementing democracy after the glorious revolution, but previous attempts never progressed to that point. Communism is authoritarian in nature, as it seeks to disempower the individual and strip them of their property rights, in favour of the collective.

          As for socialism, it depends what you mean. Democratic socialism, which is what Western countries practise, is democratic. Socialism is:

          a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

          This is incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires rule of law and property rights as a foundation. Stripping people of their property rights is authoritarian. It cannot be maintained under a democracy as individuals in the West would vote for their liberty, as they do today. This necessitates authoritarian control.