this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
448 points (75.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43395 readers
1327 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi all,

I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Climate change cannot be addressed under capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

This is a big reason I'm anti capitalist as well, it has no mechanism outside of regulation for controlling the usage of resources, and so long as something is profitable it will be pursued.

This natural result is the regulation reduces profit and it is an adversarial relationship. Because Capitalism is incapable of this, and runaway consumption is driving climate change and many ecological problems, Capitalism must either be tamed and tightly controlled, or most likely replaced with a resource aware system, such as a central planning system that considers resource consumption and weighs it against ecological considerations.

To fix things, a drastic shift is necessary, and actually is so far overdue that it's likely too late to do anything other than a near paradigm shift.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Speaking of short term gains, sure,
but isn't it possible to imagine more long term capitalistic goals aligning with actually preserving our well-being?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

There's no such thing as long term capitalistic goals. That's the entire point of things like the stock market. The goals of a capitalist enterprise is to make as much money as quickly as possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Long term goals are too risky for capitalism

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Huh? How do you explain the ban on ozone-depleting gasses? How do you explain carbon trading?

Of course climate change can be addressed under capitalism. It just can’t be addresses without regulation.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Capitalism didn't ban ozone depleting gases. It invented them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

The Montreal Protocol passed because the CFCs industry failed to lobby Reagan against the to be against Protocol. They assumed Reagan would be on their side.

Big oil saw what happened to that industry and lobbied a crap ton. Now just about everyone in the government is sponsored by them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The only reason we successfully banned CFCs, is because the more environmentally friendly replacement was cheaper.

If the motivations for fighting climate change (or any problem, really) don't align with the profit motive of the affected corporations, nothing will be done.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Regulated capitalism can direct capital to innovation in low/zero emission technologies and disincentivize investment in polluting technology very effectively,. More effectively than a corrupt command economy could do it. Fossil fuel companies have fought against interventions to push the market towards alternatives but the biggest failure has been on the political class and voters who haven't done enough to push the market in the correct direction. Photo voltaics, storage technology and wind turbines have received a lot of investment and are growing rapidly despite the work of the big polluters to stall action.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure, it directs money towards alternatives, while doing absolutelyfucking nothing about actually reducing the harmful technologies. We may have more solar and wind (neither of which is perfect, nothing is), which is then used as propaganda to show "Oh, look at all the progress we're making!", while still mostly keeping oil and coal.

And, of course, everything is the fault of regular people, struggling to get by, companies are blameless.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Capitalism is what got us here my lemon.