"Liberalism and socialism, rather than opposing one another in the manner depicted in outdated polemics, are connected by an inner bond. Liberalism is the ideal force of inspiration, and socialism is the practical force of realization."
@LilyWonderland5 I think it could, but the political will to implement socialism needs to be massive. I don’t think it’s particularly realistic. Which is why I think it’s weird to claim it would solve climate issues better.
@LilyWonderland5 I don’t think you can really have socialism without democracy, it’s simply a managerial economy. China still has private control over the means of production as well.
@felchen A socialist economy wouldn’t be free of the drive for increasing production or making more stuff. Solving climate change under socialism would still need political will, and it would still entail making people’s lives worse in the short term. Which would be unpopular.
@felchen But that’s ultimately something people could solve by voting. Profit ultimately has to be derived from some kind of need, even if our needs are distorted under capitalism (which they certainly are).
@LilyWonderland5 Attempted to prevent the corruption of money in politics. The eastern block wasn’t exactly institutionally free of corruption.
Sure capitalist will attempt to undo or stop change, but I simply don’t think that socialism is free of stops either. That’s my central point.
@LilyWonderland5 Yeah indeed, for example our current right-wing government in Sweden has slowed our green transition. Luckily they’re probably gonna be voted out. So they only got one term to do bad stuff.
@LilyWonderland5 But in what way is China socialist? There’s no democratic control, the state is a dictatorship after all.
And it’s not like the party is free of financial influence.
@LilyWonderland5 I mean would a socialist state necessarily do that? Depends on what we mean by a socialist state.
Most states which have claimed to be socialist have not really done so I would say.
And I think you can prevent or limit money in politics under capitalism.
@LilyWonderland5 Additionally dictatorships often have lesser incentives to deal with major issues than democracies, because political elites and oligarchy tends to insulate them from the consequences.
This also applies to democracies where money in politics is prominent.
@LilyWonderland5 Sure but we also have some rich countries, such as Scandinavia that are overall doing very well.
Long-termism isn’t unique to dictatorships.
@LilyWonderland5 But I also don’t see why the influence of certain industries wouldn’t exist under socialism. Oil workers would still have an incentive to oppose climate legislation. Given their jobs would be on the line.
@LilyWonderland5 In reality I just think a lot of socialists entail socialism as more than an economic transition. And that a socialist society would be one more ethically minded.
@LilyWonderland5 But I see no reason why a capitalist nation couldn’t also commit to some like soft form of degrowth or reduce its outputs. The primary issue to me is simply that no matter the system the will to actually fight climate change is simply hard to maintain.
@Nic_Mone As such the economy should be organized through worker cooperatives and other forms of democratic organization. It’s socialist, because workers democratically own the means of production.
@Nic_Mone I don’t understand. My position is that under capitalism workers don’t have the ability to properly plan out their own economic activity, because it is dictated to them by their employer, rather than set by deliberation with one’s fellow worker.