this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1658 points (96.0% liked)

Solarpunk

5520 readers
52 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

I think these are reasonable suggestions to make society more equitable. Do you disagree with any of them? Or just don't like them because they modify the existing system instead of tearing it all down?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (7 children)

They are reasonable suggestions if you refuse to think outside the box of capitalism.

And no, thinking outside of capitalism doesn't require to tear it all down. That is exactly what the capitalist want us to think with their TINA.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

What would you change it for? We've tried many systems globally and historically. Capitalism seems to be the best at reducing poverty.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No it's not. Russian and Chinese state capitalism turned two preindustrial countries into global superpowers in a matter of decades, and lifted unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty. And they weren't even communist! Communism has been tried in places like Catalonia and economically, it succeeded. Militarily, not so much, but only because all the capitalists turned against them. Capitalism is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lifting people out of poverty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, China and Russia had rapid advancements in reducing poverty by embracing capitalism market principles. That's partly the point.

Nobody is advocating for pure capitalism. No country practices it. It's theoretical and has no restrictions, or regulations.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

No, they didn't advance by adopting capitalism market principles. They advanced by adopting state capitalism, which is actually defined by lack of a market. They had a planned economy instead, and they advanced faster than the US because markets are inefficient. China has a planned economy with markets, but highly regulated and non based on competition like a traditional capitalist style market.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)