265
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Incremental progress is not illegitimate. It’s just never going to be enough to solve the problem that is capitalism. If it were, the New Deal would have fixed this system and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ok....so because the New Deal didn't... overthrow capitalism forever.... therefore working within the system is pointless?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes 🙌 . Read Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg to understand why.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

And the Nordic countries just don't exist?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Social democracies aren’t socialism. They have unions, co-ops, but they don’t own the means of production. They are capitalism with heavy regulation and strong social policies. And they are already regressing. If we were a more socially democratic, my opinion might be different, But, historically, the reality that capitalism decays into fascism would still be true.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Why do you assume that socialist systems won't also experience a gravitational pull towards fascism? In my opinion that's universal across all political systems. Also aren't all extant "state owns the means of production" counties quite fascist?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Wow, you’re really going there. I agree with your thinking. I think of it this way. Would I rather deal with climate change under a capitalist/fascist dictatorship with overconsumption and excess growth. Or would I rather deal with climate change under a tankie dictatorship with a planned economy that limits consumption and growth. I’ll pick the Marxist Leninist one. I’d rather it be an anarcho communist one. But with multiple factions vying for power and trying to control huge populations, that may not be possible.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

So, do we agree that climate policy has been mixed-bag both in "The West" and China? (Everybody is touting their green tech while still building new fossil fuel extraction and plants)

Even if you were sure a tankie government would deliver better on climate change, what are the odds that "the revolution" leads to a full fascist government instead?

Surely the Right outguns us 10 to 1?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

India has said they won’t stop developing until they have the same standard of living as the west. I’m willing to live under fascism if my kids can survive on this planet. That’s not even a difficult choice.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the international politics of climate are absolute shit. I think we have to survive and resist this worldwide lurch rightwards before that will change.

[-] MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

At least read what he posted before replying. We don't need to build another reddit where people just rage at each other on behalf of their team.

[-] bleph@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For the record, when I posted that reply the parent only read "yes 🙌"

I was saltier than I would like to be in retrospect though, I cut it out of a comment.

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
265 points (90.3% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2983 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS