Evil Rich People

[Deleted User 863]

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

Bingo.

It wouldn't take long for an organized boycott to hurt them where it counts and force some changes to occur.

I think we will get there. The good folks care about the environment. We will all need to make some sacrifices for the good of our planet.

[japhy]

I thought you wanted a reasoned conversation.

How is universal healthcare the only delineator between economic systems? What economic system does universal healthcare fall under?

are there other metrics you prefer?

I just picked universal healthcare cuz I think it IS one of those delineators that might suggest a more socialist/commie system.

But again, I dunno where you're going with this.

I'm all for reasoned conversation, but it's just difficult to do when you're being so CoyDC about it.

What's your point here? Why'd you post the top 15 economies by GDP and expect me to have all these answers for you?

Because you are the one espousing the superiority of socialism and communism to capitalism with regards to changing important environmental decision making for the future.

How does universal healthcare fit into that?

Look at descriptions of those economic systems. They are theories, not actual economic systems that have been used to run the economy of any of those countries. China's economy has created 539 billionaires since they became "socialist/communist" and Russia's economy has created 83 according to Forbes. That don't sound anything like either Marxist definition to me. Sounds like capitalism to me.

So I would posit that all of those countries are capitalist. There are no socialist or communist countries in the world and never have been. At the first stage of the socialist revolution someone is put in charge of something, realizes this is their chance to make real money, and never lets go of control. In the end they turn into authoritarians to hold onto the money and get richer. The richer they get the more firmly they hold onto power and restrict who gets into their club.

In the end there are two types of capitalism then, democracy based and authoritarian based. If you want a say in how capitalists makes decisions, then you need to speak their language. Capital ownership and consumers are the only two voices at the table.

[KUTradition]

it’s almost like humans are fallible

[japhy]

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

Bingo.

It wouldn't take long for an organized boycott to hurt them where it counts and force some changes to occur.

I think we will get there. The good folks care about the environment. We will all need to make some sacrifices for the good of our planet.

And in what system is the consumer the ultimate decider in the long run? Democracy based Capitalism.

Put anything you want on the market, but if no one is buying, you fail.

In China, if the government wants all potatoes individually wrapped in plastic. No one in China come in with their certified organic cotton produce bag and individually buy potatoes sans plastic wrap. If everyone in the US stopped buying those, no grocery would carry those. It is an easier fix than creating legislation to stop the sale of individually wrapped potatoes or overthrowing an authoritarian government.

[japhy]

it’s almost like humans are fallible

It almost like those theories have been proven wrong and unachievable by human history.

faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[Deleted User 863]

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

Bingo.

It wouldn't take long for an organized boycott to hurt them where it counts and force some changes to occur.

I think we will get there. The good folks care about the environment. We will all need to make some sacrifices for the good of our planet.

And in what system is the consumer the ultimate decider in the long run? Democracy based Capitalism.

Put anything you want on the market, but if no one is buying, you fail.

In China, if the government wants all potatoes individually wrapped in plastic. No one in China come in with their certified organic cotton produce bag and individually buy potatoes sans plastic wrap. If everyone in the US stopped buying those, no grocery would carry those. It is an easier fix than creating legislation to stop the sale of individually wrapped potatoes or overthrowing an authoritarian government.

The people have power in our system.

But only if they organize and mobilize to create the change they seek.

[ousdahl]

it’s almost like humans are fallible

It almost like those theories have been proven wrong and unachievable by human history.

faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

you know, the ancient Greeks already tried democracy, and look how that worked out.

Therefore, no one should ever try democracy again.

[japhy]

Bingo.

It wouldn't take long for an organized boycott to hurt them where it counts and force some changes to occur.

I think we will get there. The good folks care about the environment. We will all need to make some sacrifices for the good of our planet.

And in what system is the consumer the ultimate decider in the long run? Democracy based Capitalism.

Put anything you want on the market, but if no one is buying, you fail.

In China, if the government wants all potatoes individually wrapped in plastic. No one in China come in with their certified organic cotton produce bag and individually buy potatoes sans plastic wrap. If everyone in the US stopped buying those, no grocery would carry those. It is an easier fix than creating legislation to stop the sale of individually wrapped potatoes or overthrowing an authoritarian government.

The people have power in our system.

But only if they organize and mobilize to create the change they seek.

With half of the US population struggling to figure out how to get to the end of the month with food and a place to live, they have little energy left to organize and mobilize. If the end of the month seems like it could be the end of your life as you know it, then why worry about next year's environmental catastrophe. Or if they are actively disengaged they vote to burn the house down so everyone goes down in flames.

A better social safety net, which would include universal healthcare, would help.

But if you are already "woke", then get involved in Woke Capitalism. There is a reason why it scares the shit out of the Republicans.

[ousdahl]

re: capitalism and environmental issues, I feel like I once had a much better answer for this, but, let's take a stab...

if we rework systems to provide goods and services more fairly, based on things like need, and common good, then perhaps that system would be better equipped to address the NEED of curbing environmental issues.

cuz capitalism is a system that provides goods and services based more on...what? Consumer culture? Concentration of wealth? Profit potential? And usually in the most short-sighted status quo ways possible?

So as far as I can tell - if we're gonna sincerely address environmental issues, we either need to make the curbing of environmental issues more profitable, or, yea, just overhaul the system to something based more on common good and meeting basic needs.

(heck, hasn't the for-profit free market capitalist oil industry known for decades that their product was destroying the earth? How's that working out for us?)

no mention about the demand side of things?

just spit-balling here, but what if some critical mass of CONSUMERS just decided they were no longer going to support those capitalist entities most responsible for environmental destruction?

all that really requires is effective education, as well as suitable and “green” alternatives (which should come if the demand is high enough)

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

if we can get some consumer-demand-based solution, great.

But I think that gives too much credit to consumers, and glosses over who maintains the power and control in a capitalist system.

And also in things like the Merican political system, where you mostly just get 2 choices, both of which tend to get to where they are by effectively leveraging the "money equals free speech" thing.

fwiw the lefty refrain is "educate and organize." So then, why is it still so difficult to educate and organize? Especially when the lessons trying to be taught are those pursuing equality and common good and basic needs. Why can't we get over our class divides? Why does Beav work his ass off for peanuts but still Stan so hard for capitalism?

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but has it even occurred to anyone else that the most warmongering capitalist country the world's ever seen, is also perhaps the most propagandized?

[twocoach]

re: capitalism and environmental issues, I feel like I once had a much better answer for this, but, let's take a stab...

if we rework systems to provide goods and services more fairly, based on things like need, and common good, then perhaps that system would be better equipped to address the NEED of curbing environmental issues.

cuz capitalism is a system that provides goods and services based more on...what? Consumer culture? Concentration of wealth? Profit potential? And usually in the most short-sighted status quo ways possible?

So as far as I can tell - if we're gonna sincerely address environmental issues, we either need to make the curbing of environmental issues more profitable, or, yea, just overhaul the system to something based more on common good and meeting basic needs.

(heck, hasn't the for-profit free market capitalist oil industry known for decades that their product was destroying the earth? How's that working out for us?)

no mention about the demand side of things?

just spit-balling here, but what if some critical mass of CONSUMERS just decided they were no longer going to support those capitalist entities most responsible for environmental destruction?

all that really requires is effective education, as well as suitable and “green” alternatives (which should come if the demand is high enough)

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

if we can get some consumer-demand-based solution, great.

But I think that gives too much credit to consumers, and glosses over who maintains the power and control in a capitalist system.

And also in things like the Merican political system, where you mostly just get 2 choices, both of which tend to get to where they are by effectively leveraging the "money equals free speech" thing.

fwiw the lefty refrain is "educate and organize." So then, why is it still so difficult to educate and organize? Especially when the lessons trying to be taught are those pursuing equality and common good and basic needs. Why can't we get over our class divides? Why does Beav work his ass off for peanuts but still Stan so hard for capitalism?

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but has it even occurred to anyone else that the most warmongering capitalist country the world's ever seen, is also perhaps the most propagandized?

Consumers have also shown that the vast majority are self serving and want what they want at the cheapest rate possible, damn the consequences. There are exceptions to the rule in people who are willing to pay for specific products because they feel they are produced with some consideration to the environment but they are in the minority big time.

"So then, why is it still so difficult to educate and organize?"

If the last 6 years have taught us nothing else, it has proven that a startlingly large number of people do not want to learn anything that requires them to alter their self-centered world view or experience any inconvenience or added expense in any way. It's easy to provide the information. What is difficult is getting people to actually consider it.

[ousdahl]

yea.

I almost added something like, maybe if our systems valued the environment as a basic right rather than just another capitalist commodity, maybe fewer forests would be clear cut. Maybe if our systems valued food as a basic right rather than just another capitalist commodity, fewer poor folks would be eating bats. And maybe if our systems valued literal lives as a basic right rather than just another capitalist commodity, our systems would value public health as much as they value economic productivity. Maybe we'd even have fewer deaths in a pandemic, or fewer pandemics in the first place.

OR something.

But, re: consumer power and letting markets decide, too many consumers are concerned about some basic sense of survival to really have the power to stand up for much else.

It's almost like "With half of the US population struggling to figure out how to get to the end of the month with food and a place to live, they have little energy left to organize and mobilize" is almost by design...

...or, do we want to double down on the idea of poverty as an individual problem, rather than a systemic one?

[Deleted User 863]

Do you do anything to promote change other than bitching about things on a messageboard with less than 20 active participants?

If the answer is no, which based on your posting frequency it is, then it's hard to take you seriously on some of this stuff. It mostly just comes across as some self righteous mission to prove how good of a person you are to a bunch of (mostly) strangers.

Be the change you seek in others.

Stop looking for some instant quick fix that doesn't exist.

Do you support these companies you complain about? My guess is the answer to that question is yes. Seems like you want someone else to do the work for you.

[Deleted User 863]

Poverty can be both systemic and individual.

Food as a basic human right is interesting. Food production requires input and labor.

The idea that everyone can have everything they want/need while having to do little to nothing to get it is not realistic or sustainable.

[ousdahl]

dammit illy if you wanna have a dialogue then you're gonna have to do something to get yourself off ignore first.

until then, I assume each of your posts is nothing more than doubling down on falsely accusing me of saying the N word.

[ousdahl]

I try to be fair tho, so if you wanna be unignored, here's your sporting chance:

Go get your Bible. Look up James 5:1-6. Post the verses, along with your own perception an analysis of those versus, in the religious thread.

If I see you bump the religious thread, I'll assume you did so in good faith, and will click to read your post there.

Depending on how well your post is, maybe I'll take you off ignore.

[ousdahl]

it was either that, or ask you to bump the boycott illy with a sincere apology, but that sounds lame.

so it's either that, or go Behind QT and just fucking throw down already. I'll never not read your posts there.

[zsn]

Hope I don’t regret jumping in the middle here. I don’t think necessarily that the economic systems (communism, socialism, capitalism etc) and governance (dictatorship, democracy etc) are mutually exclusive although they tend to combine in certain ways in practice. Russia is an example of how a practically totalitarian government is running an ostensibly capitalist economy, resulting in an oligarchy.

We can point to places in our own economy where capitalism has been thrust where it doesn’t belong and has resulted in devastating consequences because capitalism has worked exactly as intended - health care distribution and utilities distribution are two areas that at the top.

[japhy]

re: capitalism and environmental issues, I feel like I once had a much better answer for this, but, let's take a stab...

if we rework systems to provide goods and services more fairly, based on things like need, and common good, then perhaps that system would be better equipped to address the NEED of curbing environmental issues.

cuz capitalism is a system that provides goods and services based more on...what? Consumer culture? Concentration of wealth? Profit potential? And usually in the most short-sighted status quo ways possible?

So as far as I can tell - if we're gonna sincerely address environmental issues, we either need to make the curbing of environmental issues more profitable, or, yea, just overhaul the system to something based more on common good and meeting basic needs.

(heck, hasn't the for-profit free market capitalist oil industry known for decades that their product was destroying the earth? How's that working out for us?)

no mention about the demand side of things?

just spit-balling here, but what if some critical mass of CONSUMERS just decided they were no longer going to support those capitalist entities most responsible for environmental destruction?

all that really requires is effective education, as well as suitable and “green” alternatives (which should come if the demand is high enough)

i’d argue that it’s the US public that stands in the way of better environmental policies more so than capitalism itself

if we can get some consumer-demand-based solution, great.

But I think that gives too much credit to consumers, and glosses over who maintains the power and control in a capitalist system.

And also in things like the Merican political system, where you mostly just get 2 choices, both of which tend to get to where they are by effectively leveraging the "money equals free speech" thing.

fwiw the lefty refrain is "educate and organize." So then, why is it still so difficult to educate and organize? Especially when the lessons trying to be taught are those pursuing equality and common good and basic needs. Why can't we get over our class divides? Why does Beav work his ass off for peanuts but still Stan so hard for capitalism?

I'm sure I'll get shit for this, but has it even occurred to anyone else that the most warmongering capitalist country the world's ever seen, is also perhaps the most propagandized?

And yet when the world looks for a country to lead the way forward in a crisis they still look to the U.S.

Maybe the rest of the world is stupid and only a few smart ones are enlightened enough to look to Vladimir and Xi to make world a better place.

It's possible.

If you want to save the world from environmental collapse, you are too late. Most of the world's population is more worried about how to survive until tomorrow to worry about how to survive another decade. Even the majority of the people who see the destruction on the horizon can't be bothered to give up convenience or immediate gratification to save the human species. There really is no other explanation why you can go to a conference on making the world a better place and find water in plastic bottles in the lobby. My wife is often asked how to make a festival or gathering "more sustainable". She always says, "it's easy, don't have the event".

The reality is the human species has reached the point of overpopulation and impending population collapse. Climate change, microplastics, pandemics; all of these and more will reduce life expectancy and quality in the future for all species. Humans will not think their way out of it and be the exception. Humans are the ones who thought our way into it.

And don't forget that there is a significant portion of our population that thinks a "rapture" would prove the righteousness of their beliefs and cheer for it.

[ousdahl]

some of the Qusdahl memes lean "tankie" which is a term basically for Stalin Stans, who dug the authoritarianism of sending the tanks into Hungary to quash a resistance uprising in the Soviet Union.

The thought of tanks sounds all aggressive and harsh and authoritarian and mean and scary! until you realize the tanks were sent to quash an uprising specifically of fascists.

Or like in Cuba, how Castro purged Cuba of his critics, which sounds so authoritarian and scary! Until you realize his critics were mostly former slaveholders who were pissed about loosing their plantation hustles.

The point is, there's a certain ideology that suggests the key to making communism work is a certain authoritarianism to go with.

And while I'm all for purging slaveholders and fascists, I still stop short of identifying as a tankie.

I dunno, perhaps it's paradoxical. But then again, so is the idea that we should be intolerant of intolerance.

[ousdahl]

And yet when the world looks for a country to lead the way forward in a crisis they still look to the U.S.

oh man!

why unignore illy when Japhy brings takes as hot as this!

...link?

If you want to save the world from environmental collapse, you are too late. Most of the world's population is more worried about how to survive until tomorrow to worry about how to survive another decade. Even the majority of the people who see the destruction on the horizon can't be bothered to give up convenience or immediate gratification to save the human species.

this seems to not be unrelated to my question yesterday, about how if capitalism really is so great at things like creating surpluses of food, then how come so many people still deal with hunger and food insecurity in a capitalist-dominated global market?

if only we had systems built on meeting basic needs rather than built on individual accumulation of wealth, maybe we wouldn't throw so much food away..

And don't forget that there is a significant portion of our population that thinks a "rapture" would prove the righteousness of their beliefs and cheer for it.

if only illy would bump the religious thread.