[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1698163760262.jpg ( 152.97 KB , 331x346 , 20231024_090546.jpg )

 No.476338[View All]

>BREAKING: Donald Trump's sinister plans for a second presidential term if he wins the White House in 2024 are leaked — and they include a stunning gift to America's enemies around the world.

>According to new reporting from Rolling Stone, sources close to Trump have revealed that he is threatening to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

>NATO, and specifically the U.S.'s central role in it, has been one of the primary reasons why Ukraine has been able to resist Russia's brutal and genocidal invasion. The alliance is stronger than ever.

>Trump has long hated the alliance for unclear reasons. He is suggesting that he will pull out if the other member countries refuse to ramp up their military spending — which is utterly nonsensical.

>If Trump's problem is that NATO needs more funding to be more effective, withdrawing America from it would obviously have the opposite effect. It's almost as if he hates NATO because Putin hates it…

>Sources have told Rolling Stone that Trump is considering an idiotic "NATO on standby" policy and that he wants to do away with its collective defense measure that dictates an attack on one member be treated as an attack on all.

>Fundamentally, Donald Trump doesn't understand geopolitics, doesn't understand alliances or strategies, and he can't be allowed anywhere near such decisions.

>Please retweet and ❤️ if you refuse to vote for Donald Trump — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a “woke” new Twitter competitor that is exploding in popularity because it banned Trump for life and because Elon Musk banned Tribel’s Twitter account — but he forgot to ban this link to download the new Tribel app: tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb

https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1716494916455657942?t=wwdLe1NSwFA-J3HJ4rH0Gg&s=19

He defo going to prison now
59 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.476430

>>476429
I'm neither of those things.

Tankoids are just incapable of fathoming of thinking outside of the box lol.
>>

 No.476431

>>476430
Idk, the warpdrive pipeline from ultra leftist, straight-to-leftoid-utopia faggotry to clutching-at-straws, neo-conservatism-with-progressive-characteristics is real.

And there are only so many options on the Culturally Conservative/Faggot and Libertarian/State Authority matrix.

But I generally agree. People who honestly believe that China is '2 weeks away' from shifting to hyper communism are beyond delusional and generally resort to schematic gobly gook.

Would be interested to read a tweet-sized summary of your positive beliefs.
>>

 No.476432

>>476431
There are all kinds of pipelines. Enough said that all of the big three, ie anarchism, vanguardism, and social democracy, have a pipeline to fascism lol.

I personally consider classical interwar fascism as a radical right current of the workers movement, which would explain close intellectual and organizational ties between fascism and the traditional left.

I view pre ww1 workers movement as in general a monolithic social-democratic one. Post ww1 you have disintegration of the old social democracy into its right and left radical wings, ie fascism and vanguardism. And they battled it out in the interwar period in Europe, with disoriented confused bourgeoisie clinging to fascism.
>>

 No.476433

>>476432
I asked for a tweet sized summary specifically because I didn't want to read a word salad
>>

 No.476434

>>476431
>Would be interested to read a tweet-sized summary of your positive beliefs.
Lol, I have takes that would make butthurt everyone on the left.

Fist and foremost, Marx is overrated as fuck, and the amount of valuable original thought in his writings is laughable. I'm still split 50/50 if he was detrimental or beneficial to the workers movement in the end. One thing is clear: faggot brought great confusion into socialist economic thought with his philosophycel upper-class wankings. He ripped off 90% of ricardian theory that already was being developed by ricardian socialists as a theoretical foundation of the labor movement, branded them all as "utopians" (the fucking irony), redressed it in his philosophycel speak, and sold it to his fellow upper-class leaders of the labor movement (that precisely at that time begun to form as a stable political group) as some profound never-before-seen revelation.

The faggot also brought his retarded philisophycel teleology into the labor movement.

He is the main reason why I can't stand leftoid intellectuals to this day. They are all insufferable faggots.

Basically I view him as the main ideologue of the new labour political elite that came into the forefront at the time as a consequence of the proletarian class struggle.
>>

 No.476435

>>476434
His concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been largely detrimental allowing opportunists to smuggle statism back in to the equation
>>

 No.476436

>>476433
Ok.

1) Ideological domination of Marx was a net negative to the labor movement.

2) Hard technological determinism. Forces of production do not include organization of production processes. They only include various techniques of production and a body of scientific knowledge.

3) Rejection of teleology (communism), while acceptance of historical progress of social forms due to the changes in the techniques of production.

4) Rejection of individual agency in historical progress. Societies are too complex an organism for individuals to have any lasting relevance.

5) fascism and vanguardism are two radical currents of the Marxian orthodox social democracy.

6) structural logic of vanguardism tends to the right than to the left, ie with time it approaches fascism (capitalism with one party state)

7) but in the early stages vanguardism is capable of big shifts to the left given the right external pressure (right-leaning Stalin making a radical leftwing turn when faced with the crisis of the NEP model due to great depression)

8) Real Existing Socialism is a new class-based mode of production.

9) China was not a REL society due to failed industrialization. That's why it was able to smoothly transition to capitalism. REL societies can only collapse (in the economic sense) into capitalism due to the massive inertia of the mode of production.

And some other things I sure forgot…
>>

 No.476437

>>476436
Sounds reasonable.
>>

 No.476438

>>476424
>a socialist mode of production is fantasy.
Not sure if status quo warrior, that can't even conceive of a different economic structure, or if you really are that committed to the idea of using environmental problems as a pretext to boss people around, that you would oppose a new mode of production that by default internalize environmental costs.
>>

 No.476439

>>476427
>lol, what are you
excuse me for not fitting inside of your tribal boxes

>It did not. It remained a pre-industrial agrarian society dominated by peasants all the way up to transition to capitalism.
Mao's China had a planned economy that build a heavy industrial base with soviet help. They did not have an easy time doing that, but overall living conditions improved alot and so did life expectancy. The Dengist period of allowing somewhat controlled market liberalization was only possible because of the industrialization of the earlier period. The Dengist period looked to many people like China would return to capitalism, but as recent history has shown, that was wrong. The Chinese bourgeoisie was unable to gain political power and they also failed to gain control over the heights of the Chinese economy. China has a capitalist element but it's not a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

>Germany and Japan rose from the feudal periphery to rival old capitalist states.
That happened before the imperial stage of capitalism, not a single capitalist country has been able to rise since then.
>You seem to think that capitalism is incapable of rapid economic development lol.
If we are looking at the expansion of material production, yes no capitalist country comes close to socialist models.

>the confused mind of the left wing of fascism
You seem to be talking about yourself.
>Pot was openly ethnic-nationalistic
>It makes perfect sense to call him a communist
Oh I see it now, this does show your fascistic tendencies

>ultras calling you names
You engage in name-calling because you lack arguments
>>

 No.476440

>>476432
>I personally consider fascism as a current of the workers movement
There's your problem that's why you are so confused
The class character of fascism by Georgi Dimitrov
<Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital
>>

 No.476441

>>476434
Marx was a big driver for basing socialist theory on materialist foundations. That was a huge improvement.

>I view him as the main ideologue of the new labour political elite
Are you referencing UK politics where "new labor" means Neo-liberals co-opting social democrat parties. Those basically abandoned Marx and his emphasis on class struggle.

>>476435
>His concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been largely detrimental allowing opportunists to smuggle statism back in to the equation
This is idealism, Marx's theories did not make people want to gain control over the state to implement their politics, that's just what people do when there are states.
>>

 No.476442

>>476436
>Ideological domination of Marx was a net negative to the labor movement.
When the labor movement centered around Marx's theory it was immensely powerful, one has to wonder why you think a powerful labor moevment is a net negative.
>Hard technological determinism.
Marx wasn't tho, he said progress was enabled by technological advances and won by class struggle
>Rejection of individual agency in historical progress.
Yes Marx did , and he was correct individual people shaping history is ideological rot left over from the feudal era where Kings were thought to shape history. Marx thinks that the movement of the masses shapes history.
>fascism and vanguardism are two radical currents of the Marxian orthodox social democracy.
Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.
>structural logic of vanguardism tends to the right than to the left, ie with time it approaches fascism
this is not decipherable
>but in the early stages vanguardism is capable of big shifts to the left given the right external pressure (right-leaning Stalin making a radical leftwing turn when faced with the crisis of the NEP model due to great depression
The early period of the Soviet Union was a race to get industrial production going in order to survive WW2. You are over analyzing this.
>Real Existing Socialism is a new class-based mode of production.
Actually existing socialism did a reasonable job of resolving the class contradiction in favor of the proletariat. Though it was far from perfect or complete, they very much were affected by the residual effects of the previous society.
>China was not a REL society due to failed industrialization.
China industrialized successfully
>That's why it was able to smoothly transition to capitalism.
The fact that China continues building out it's industry proves that it is not capitalist, all the capitalist countries go neo-liberal after a while and then their industries fall apart, this did not happen in China.
>>

 No.476444

>>476439
>Mao's China had a planned economy that build a heavy industrial base with soviet help.
Mao's China was an agrarian society with majority of the economic activity carried out outside of any unified plan. Retarded ching-chongs even tried to get the fucking steel industry, one of the most capital intensive in the economy, out of the planning domain, which caused Molotov to suffer brain aneurysm lol.

The "industrial base" that you speak of was fucking minuscule relative to the whole economy and encompassed largely resource extraction, not machine building. While REL requires a full cycle of planning, from raw resources to end consumer products.

>That happened before the imperial stage of capitalism
It happened when Britain dominated the whole fucking world to no lesser extent than the US dominated it after the soviet collapse.

>not a single capitalist country has been able to rise since then.
except for post war West Germany, Japan, and South Korea lol

or am I supposed to close my eyes that it was US who basically industrialized China for its alliance against the Soviets like in all the other cases lol?

>If we are looking at the expansion of material production, yes no capitalist country comes close to socialist models.
How do you explain then Japan and West Germany outperforming Soviet Union in the 50s, nevermind in the 80s lol.

>You seem to be talking about yourself.
Nah I'm talking about you right-leftoid.

>It makes perfect sense to call him a communist
I called him a tankie, ie a right-wing vanguardist, witch is perfectly compatible with ethno-nationalism. Just look at any monoethnic ML state, ie North Korea.

>You engage in name-calling because you lack arguments
Nah, I have arguments AND I call you names.
>>

 No.476445

>>476440
>The class character of fascism by Georgi Dimitrov
Dimitrov was a cheap propagandoid and a Stalin's anal slave.

the class character was obviously capitalist, just like in today's China and Vietnam lol

doesn't mean that it wasn't a current of workers movement tho, as class collaborationism was always a big part of it
>>

 No.476446

>>476441
>Marx was a big driver for basing socialist theory on materialist foundations.
What materialist foundations? Dialectical mumbo-jumbo? Teleological retardation?

Marx single-handedly launched socialist theory into the depths of idealism.

>Are you referencing UK politics where "new labor" means Neo-liberals co-opting social democrat parties.
No, retard, I'm referencing post Chartist social democracy of the mass labor parties exemplified by the German social democratic party.
>>

 No.476447

>>476444
>Retarded ching-chongs
The quality of your post is rather lacking

Considering the level of development that Chinese communists started out with, one has to acknowledge how effective their industrialization effort was, even if it was a rough ride at times. It's true that industries starts out with resource extraction. All in all there are no capitalist countries that come anywhere near the level of development that China saw.

The Soviet system which is different than the Chinese one also saw an unparalleled rise. There is nothing even remotely comparable in Capitalism. Go look at material production, not the massaged statistics from capitalist ideologues. If 2 Wall-street guys sell each other stocks back and forth that generates transactions and raises the GDP figure but it doesn't increase production.

During the late 80s the Soviets had 3% growth, they called that "intolerable stagnation".
Capitalists call 3% growth a "booming economy"

>I called him a
Yeah i don't care about your tribal labels anymore.
>>

 No.476448

>>476445
>attacking the character of Dimitrov instead of what he wrote.
You take the L.

>actually existing socialism in the 20th century was capitalist
The neo-libs are pushing this line to obfuscate that alternatives to capitalism can exist and did exist. Maybe you should try not to fall for that trick, even if you don't like what 20th century socialists did.

>class collaborationism is a big part of the workers movement
No. There are 2 types of workers movements: reformist aka Social democracy and revolutionary aka socialism. Class collaborationism is what destroys worker movements for example it turns Social democracy into Neo-liberalism, and if it takes hold of revolutionary socialist organizations they collapse or splinter.
>>

 No.476449

>>476446
I agree that the hegelian language that marx used is outdated now. We now have scientific language that makes materialism much easier to understand as well as being much more precise. The only Hegelian part that people still use is about definitions and sometimes the oppositional inversion tendency.

However that doesn't change the fact that Marx did massively improve socialist theory by grounding it in materialism.

>I'm referencing post Chartist social democracy of the mass labor parties exemplified by the German social democratic party.
Sorry no clue what a "post Chartist" is supposed to be, or how thats related to the German SPD.
>>

 No.476450

File: 1698365604098.jpg ( 371.5 KB , 1280x720 , La-7.jpg )

>>476442
>When the labor movement centered around Marx's theory it was immensely powerful, one has to wonder why you think a powerful labor movement is a net negative.
one has to wonder why you think it wouldn't have been powerful without Marx's """contributions""" lol

I think its a net negative because Marx with his philosophy gave worker political elite a tool of manipulation of the proletariat.

It stems from my conviction that philosophy is a strictly upper class phenomenon that is inherently reactionary to everything.

>Marx wasn't tho, he said progress was enabled by technological advances and won by class struggle
Eh, Marx was pretty deterministic too, tho not to my extent.

My position is that ultimately all human history was predetermined by geography from the very beginning if we take out natural disasters and other such extraordinary events.

>Fascism is blah blah a bunch of meaningless epithets
Are you gonna repeat your Dimitrov retardation like a broken record now tankoid?

Fascism is a radical mass mobilized capitalism that takes a political form of one party state or military dictatorship.

>this is not decipherable
you're just retarded

>The early period of the Soviet Union was a race to get industrial production going in order to survive WW2. You are over analyzing this.
How is that contradicts anything I said? Obviously the threat of invasion was the main external factor that pushed Stalin's hand in radical direction, because the complete failure of grain procurements and falling world grain prices meant the failure of industrialization and by extension military defeat.

Without this threat Stalin would've stuck with the NEP like our chinese dengoids.

>Actually existing socialism did a reasonable job of resolving the class contradiction in favor of the proletariat.
Only when it came to conflicts with the peasantry. And only until Khrushchev threw Stalin's pissed corpse out of the mausoleum lol.

RES never did a reasonable job of resolving conflicts with the nomenclature, because there could be no resolution between exploiters and the exploited in the class system lol.

>China industrialized successfully
So the Great Leap Forward was a success then lol?

>The fact that China continues building out it's industry proves that it is not capitalist
So is India not capitalist too? How about Mexico? Germany?

See just how retarded you are? of course you don't, lol
>>

 No.476451

>>476450
>Actually existing socialism did a reasonable job of resolving the class contradiction in favor of the proletariat.
<Only when it came to conflicts with the peasantry.
Forgot to add, "resolution" here means terror against peasantry lol.
>>

 No.476452

>>476447
>one has to acknowledge how effective their industrialization effort was
I don't have to acknowledge shit. The retards failed massively. Killed an absolute mind boggling amount of people for fucking nothing. And soyviets even told them they would fail with their backyard furnaces, communes and shit.

>It's true that industries starts out with resource extraction.
And that's precisely why after the first five-year plan there usually goes second and the third, you retarded ching-chong.

>The Soviet system which is different than the Chinese one also saw an unparalleled rise. There is nothing even remotely comparable in Capitalism.
There are plenty of parallels, you're just retarded.

>Go look at material production, not the massaged statistics from capitalist ideologues. If 2 Wall-street guys sell each other stocks back and forth that generates transactions and raises the GDP figure but it doesn't increase production.
Japan fucking flooded the world with its goods post ww2 to such an extent that the US was forced to start a protectionist trade war against them in the middle of the Cold War lol. Unparalleled my ass.

>During the late 80s the Soviets had 3% growth, they called that "intolerable stagnation".
Soyviet GDP figures meant jack shit. It was a different mode of production where monetary figures became pretty detached from material reality especially after all the countless aimless economic reforms lol.

And even then majority of that "GDP" was generated in the heavy industry sector and for the heavy industry sector, which led to empty shelves, because workers in the heavy industry sector can't eat fucking rolled steel and tanks lol.
>>

 No.476453

>>476448
>attacking the character of Dimitrov instead of what he wrote.
he wrote a bunch of epithets, so everything that's left is to attack his character

>actually existing socialism in the 20th century was capitalist
myopic retard

AES is not capitalism with confucian characteristics

I literally told you that China was never an AES state lol

>The neo-libs are pushing this line to obfuscate that alternatives to capitalism can exist and did exist.
capitalism with confucian characteristics is not an alternative to capitalism lol

>No.
Lmao, who do you think you are? Social democrats were voting for war credits when your grandpa wasn't even in the project yet lol.

>There are 2 types of workers movements: reformist aka Social democracy and revolutionary aka socialism.
Tell me what was the full name of the russian bolshevik party?

literally fucking subhuman autism score.. even my dog is smarter lol
>>

 No.476454

>>476449
>However that doesn't change the fact that Marx did massively improve socialist theory by grounding it in materialism.
Marx didn't invent histmat lol, he ripped off Saint-Simon just as he ripped off Ricardo in the economic theory

he actually managed to made it worse with his retarded phylosophycel diamat

Basically his modus operandi was: take a piece of good theory, add hegelian dialectics to it, and claim it as your own invention lol.

An intellectual parasite.

>Sorry no clue what a "post Chartist" is supposed to be, or how thats related to the German SPD.
If you don't understand what a prime example of mass movement for universal male suffrage means for mass party politics in general and labor parties in particular, then I have nothing to say to you lol.

You seem to be completely ignorant of the history of the labor movement. Maybe you should read less about the shadowy (((neo-libs))) on gayzone and instead pick up a history book lol?
>>

 No.476457

>>476438
Actually, I largely agree with the other nuanced posters, in that history is largely determinate.

However, I'd say that a neo-tributary/neo feudal system is already largely in place and unavoidable. The struggle, properly speaking, is at the margins and about the cultural contours.

Tldr. Capitalism has already been supplanted; workers democracy is a slave morality fantasy; there are still causes to fight for.
>>

 No.476458

>>476439
It's a dictatorship of the upper echelons of the party, which just so happens to have a large controlling interest in the levers of economic planning and management.

It's not capitalism and even further away from a 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'
>>476440
>Regurgitating stale dogma while pretending to be a deep original thinker
>Nevermind that during the 1920s, Lenin and Moussolini weren't at odd.

'fascism' as a term within the ICM only gained currency because the Soviet Union needed a way to describe Nazi Germany, and 'National Socialism' sounded a bit too close to Stalin's earlier policy of 'socialism in one country '

>>476442
>Bleats more opportunists dogma from 100 years ago

>>476448
Every successful revolution was class collaborationist, drawing together multiple sectors of civic society. 90% of your vanguard leaders in history were drawn from the petty bourgeoisie (Engels, Mao), primitive PMC (Lenin, Marx, Vo Nguyen Giap), lumpen (Stalin), or even comprador class (Chou En Lai). working class leaders include dullards like Khrushchev.
>>

 No.476459

File: 1698386847600.png ( 82.07 KB , 1068x512 , 1698375366488087.png )

=OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
>>

 No.476460

>>476428
>They herded/stalked mammoths off of cliffs.
lol, for what purpose? Are you saying mammoths went extinct after they were all pushed off of a cliff?

hahaha
>>

 No.476461

>>476460
Retarded uyghur faggot. Try reading the entire paragraph instead of picking one sentence out of context for your ghey gotcha strawmanning
>>

 No.476462

File: 1698396896497.png ( 17.27 KB , 818x580 , Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png )

>>476428
>There was also a global shift in climate which most likely played a large role in the extinction of many megafauna
Some role, perhaps. But placing too much blame on climate change fails to account for how most most if not all of those extinct Pleistocene megafauna had managed to adapt to and survive the climate change of many preceding glacial and interglacial periods. The average longevity of a mammal species is about 1 million years and you can fit about a dozen glacial cycles in that time frame. The culprit was humans.
>>

 No.476463

>>476462
Correction: a more recent estimate puts the average longevity of large-bodied mammals during the Cenozoic period at around 3.2 million years.
>>

 No.476464

>>476454
This person does not understand Marxism. They can be safely ignored.
>>

 No.476468

>>476464
<This person doesn't understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. They can be safely ignored
>Also vehemently disagrees that Marxism is a religion for secular dorks
>>

 No.476469

File: 1698410318121.jpg ( 382.59 KB , 1280x800 , co2-graph-072623.jpg )

>>476462
Oh, brother, give it a rest already.
Man made climate change and normal climate change are two extremely different things. We know that man is negatively effecting the climate through decades of science done on ice samples and rock samples and various forms of isotopic dating.

Not only can most species on earth not compensate for this change (including humans) but these changes in climate are much worse than we have seen in the past.

Here's nasa to explain why.


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>

 No.476470

>>476469
>Here's my bourgeois source to support my flavor of the week mainstream opinion. The only solution is socialism, but sinse deep down I know that's untenable, I'll vote blue no matter who
It's like the left has given up any pretense of being a movement in opposition to the powers that be.
>>

 No.476471

>>476470
>Everything out of the West is booj source even though the booj denied climate change for nearly a century.
Based red brown alliancer
>>

 No.476473

File: 1698424891119.jpg ( 19.75 KB , 326x352 , what.jpg )

>>476469
Have you even been following the conversation you just responded to?
>>

 No.476474

File: 1698424961389.jpg ( 36.71 KB , 399x399 , annoyedmarx.jpg )

>>476450
>Marx bad, no coherent reason given as to why , just misrepresentations of Marx.
Bruh

>Fascism is a radical mass
No, Fascism is minoritarian, it emanates from the reactionary imperialist finance bourgeoisie, trying to use the repression methods they used for imposing imperialism on the periphery, inside the capitalist core. Dimitrov is very correct in his assessments.

>Without the threat of fascist invasion Stalin would've stuck with the NEP like our chinese dengoids.
Given the chance to build a socialist society free from internal or external capitalist interference, virtually every method or tendency ever proposed would work. If you actually had read some Marx not just a list of anti-marx talking points you rattled off, you knew that the new society has to struggle to be born from the old .

Stalin's NEP and China's dengism had separate goals. Stalin primarily had to deal with a material bases that could not support the direct creation of socialism. Dengism in China was primarily about catching up the productive forces and internalizing the contradictions of global capitalism. The Soviets could just wall off global capitalism and do their own thing, because they had all the resources. China on the other hand isn't particularly resource rich, and they have to trade.

>muh nomenclature
Yeah the Soviets failed to prevent all stratification, to some extend they had a proletarian quota system which did work. That kind of problem can be solved with a sortition democracy tho.

>muh Great Leap
Like the Chinese say: Mao was 30% wrong. The other 70% was successful.

>So is India not capitalist too? How about Mexico? Germany?
Neither of those countries can boast China's industrialization drive and rate of technological up-leveling.

>See just how retarded I am?
I wasn't going to say anything, but since you are self aware…
>>

 No.476475

File: 1698426468132.png ( 73.73 KB , 448x494 , fukoff.png )

>>476428
>>476469
Reminder that this reactionary is trying to blame all humans for the ecological mismanagement of the big bourgeoisie.

Primitive prehistoric humans did very likely hunt certain fauna into extinction, however that cannot be used to blame climate change on all humans. That's a bait and switch. Industrial society is not a hunter gatherer tribe, who simply didn't know enough to optimize their environment.

Industrial society could operate in ecological harmony while also generating fantastic levels of wealth that would enable every single human being on earth to have excellent living conditions.

Capitalism isn't able to do that because it creates extreme wealth concentrations. The decision makers think that their hyper-wealth will insulate them from the consequences of climate change. So to them, climate problems are nothing but a narrative to attack the living standards of the masses. Just compare the giant ecological foot print of a super-wealthy compared to a regular prole. If reducing consumption was genuinely about helping the climate they would start by cutting the private jets, yachts and mansions of the super-rich, not the living standards of the proles. And lets not forget all the militarism, that's got a huge ecological foot print too, guess why hardly anybody points the finger at that.

The hypocrisy of green-Neo-liberalism is also fueling rejection of climate science. While the science part is reasonably good, the societal conclusions that are being drawn are not scientific at all they are based on class-war.
>>

 No.476477

>>476475
No one is trying to "blame humans" for climate change you retard. That's laterally what it is called, anthropocentric climate change. Just because our scientific community is under the guise of neoliberal capitalism doesn't make capitalism not the issue causing climate change, to some degree.

The data is still data that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the existence of climate change is real and that's why the only argument you have is to appeal to semantical arguments because you have nothing with real substance.

Wether you believe it or not climate change is real.
To suggest otherwise is literally against the very foundational realities of science such as the conservation of energy, Entropy, etc etc.

And yeah, even outside of capitalism, we still face the risk of changing the climate berceuse you NEED ENERGY TO SUSTAIN HUMAN EXISTENCE.
>>

 No.476478

>>476475
Still rockin those straw men, eh anon?
>>

 No.476480

File: 1698432678453.png ( 1.3 MB , 1237x1458 , 1696702708594977.png )

>>476470
How are core samples of ice dating back hundreds of millions of years carbon composition bourgeois? You realize how dumb you sound currently right?
>>

 No.476481

>>476477
>No one is trying to "blame humans" for climate change
>it is called, anthropocentric climate change
why not call it capitalocentric climate change ?

>Just because our scientific community is under the guise of neoliberal capitalism
Scientists gotta do what they have to do to get their research funded, i understand. But there is no reason for (you) to accept any of the ideological impositions that neo-liberalism tries to insert into science.

>The data is still data that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the existence of climate change is real
Good grief how dense are you?
I don't doubt climate change, or the evidence for it.
It's like you're not able to remotely grasp what my point is.

I'll probably regret this, but there are real problems with the mainstream argumentation. Climate-change simulation models technically are not evidence they are interpretations of evidence, and it harms the cause of spreading scientific literacy to let those inaccuracies slide. It allows your opponents who unlike me are actually trying to deny climate change to make you look like a fool.

You can prove climate change purely on the basis of physics
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=kIonH3GNKuM
Seriously try to actually watch this video, it contains constructive criticism, that will make it easier for you to argue climate change.

>And yeah, even outside of capitalism, we still face the risk of changing the climate
That is a load of horseshit, Soviet early 21-century economic planning intended a hard shift to nuclear fission and then nuclear fusion. The Chinese communists are currently ultra-maxing solar panel production and installation. Last year alone they installed more new solar panels than the US has in total.

Climate change is a capitalist problem, the neo-liberals failed to find a way to apply nuclear-power within their economic structures. A different economic system could have been expanding nuclear power since the late 70s and CO2 concentrations would probably begin declining already (assuming 50 year cause and effect climate lag-time ). You have to blame this shit on the ruling class, because they actually did fuck this up, there can be no excuses.
>>

 No.476482

>>476481
>The Chinese communists are currently ultra-maxing solar panel production and installation.
Yeah, right after they sterilize all the life in the Yangtze river from all their giant damming projects.
>>

 No.476485

>>476482
>The Chinese build lots of solar power, i can't find anything to complain about that, how about Chinese dams, lets complain about those.
They damage local biodiversity, which to an extend will be reversible through river-re-naturalization later on. They probably should include some kind of mitigation aspects like fish-stairs. All that hydro-power will produce lots of clean electricity which definitely is a big upside.
Since you started the context-free what-about-ism. Lets contrast this imperfect Chinese damn project with the US oversized military machine, and conclude that Chinese dams have the better ecological score.
>>

 No.476487

>>476485
>Lets contrast this imperfect Chinese damn project with the US oversized military machine
You could try that, but it would be a poor comparison. Let's instead contrast it with the widespread damming across the United States, which has been devastating to migratory fishes. There are species of salmon and trout in the US now that would not exist at all without human intervention from hatching to spawning. A major point of difference to consider, however, is that for various reasons North American drainage systems historically had substantially less (i.e., orders of magnitude) vertebrate biodiversity than Asian drainage systems. So massive damming projects haven't been as impactful in the US as they are in China simply because the rivers didn't have as many different types of migratory animals vulnerable to isolation. One other aspect to consider is the devastating, transformative effect that the beaver trade had on riparian ecosystems. We could also compare the eradication of the passenger pigeon and the near eradication of bison to China's Four Pests program.
>>

 No.476488

File: 1698442256073.jpg ( 49.44 KB , 720x480 , fish-ladder.jpg )

>>476487
>You could try that, but it would be a poor comparison.
that was the point, never mind.

>migratory river animals
how about adding fish-ladders, won't that fix it ?
>>

 No.476489

>>476488
The effectiveness of things like fish ladders is often on a case-by-case basis. Some migratory fish like them, others don't care for them and won't try to use them. But direct blockage of aquatic organization migration is only one impact of damming. Dams have other disruptive effects on the flow of rivers, nutrient cycling, and sedimentation.
>>

 No.476490

>>476489
Oh and I should say, dams also negatively affect non-migratory aquatic organisms by simply creating new habitat fragmentation which restricts gene flow.
>>

 No.476492

>>476489
>>476490
It's possible to get the kinetic energy from the flowing water without dams. Using lots of free-standing in-river turbines and piped river-bypasses. That will not segment the river and should fix all the problems you mentioned. However dams do not simply extract energy from rivers they also store energy, that can be released when needed. That means we need additional stuff to store energy to replicate this feature in some other way, to fully replace dams. Given the mindbogglingly huge peak-power capacities of dams… Yeah i got no clue.

Unique IPs: 20
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome