I seriously cannot have any degree of nuanced conversation here.
Like I get it, we all know capitalism is bad, but it feels like every time I or anyone go towards discussing the steps that need to be taken to address current looming problems in the short term, someone has to jump in and shut it down with "capitalism bad >:[ " and tear down any idea presented because its not complete and total destruction of the current economic model.
The result just feels like an echo chamber where no actual solutions get presented other than someone posting whole ass dissertations on their 33-step (where 30/33 steps are about as vague as “we’ll just handle it”) plan to fully convert the world to an anarchist commune.
Edit: I still vastly prefer Lemmy and the fediverse and a whole, my complaint here is that many of you are TOO INTENSE. You blow up small scale discussion.
There’s no /s missing. Just because the op complained doesn’t make the facts less true.
I think we agree on capitalism for the most part, but do you see how OP and others might find your comment unhelpful?
As OP says themselves, yes, they know capitalism is bad. Pointing it out and leading every discussion onto it doesn’t make for a very interesting or nuanced debate.
As others have said, capitalism is here to stay for at least several decades, probably closer to a century. Major societal change is unrealistic on the short term. I think OP (and I think I largely agree) thinks that it would be better to talk more concretely about the small incremental changes we can make to make society better today.
“we’re moving straight towards that iceberg, we’re all going to die!”
“I agree but this reaction is not being helpful. Now help me rearrange these deck chairs…”
I mean, this kinda comes back to OPs complaint again. As I attempt to enter in this discussion with a more nuanced take, you reply to me in a sarcastic tone with a metaphor (that I don’t think fits very well to reality) that seems to imply that either I fully agree with you or I am part of the problem or at least not doing anything helpful.
Surely you realize that these topics are complicated and there’s not a black/white dichotomy? Can you understand how OP and others might find comments like that off-putting, as you either need to fully agree or you’re part of the problem?
I also don’t think this stance or attitude is helping your case actually. If you want to convince people to action, this is not the way to do it. This just puts them off and pushes them away.
Not every post I make is meant to be a convincing call to action. Not every situation is going to be helped at this. I surmised that this thread - full of smug centrists pointing out how we “have to be realistic” and downvoting everyone pointing out that being this way has led us directly to a climate apocalypse - is not going to be worth the effort.
I think it’s the most apt analogy there is. There, the only possible solution would have been an effective mutiny, to wrest the wheel from the captain and sail to safer waters, and damn the journey time or company profits. Much like the only solution we have right now it to wrest the “wheel” of society from the rich an d damn company profits.
But I saw you elsewhere engaging in unscientific climate denialism, much like every capitalist apologist has to in order to stave of cognitivie dissonance, so I have no patience to talk to antiscientific people.
There is no complications in saying that an Anthropogenic extinction is underway and we need to stop the system powering it.
Where? I’m sorry if I’ve offended you but I am definitely in favour of doing all we can to stop climate change and I am definitely not anti-scientific or in denial about climate change (I fully believe climate change exists and is caused by humans, for the record).
Please, let’s not devolve to name-calling or insults.
This implies that climate change would have happened on its own.
That’s not what I meant. I meant that there’s many different types of societies and capitalism is just one of them. It’s perfectly possible that we could’ve had something other than capitalism (if only) and we still would’ve dug oil out of the ground and burned it to cause climate change. Capitalism is bad and causes climate change, but I’m sure many other types of societies (maybe not all) would also do it.
Historic Revisionism is just apologia with extra steps. As if you can’t engage in direct whataboutism, so you have to invent a fictional whataboutism.
Facts of the matter is that Capitalism did directly lead to climate apocalypse. We knew the effects of burning fossil fuels since the 19th century, but all steps to prevent this scenario were thwarted by, you guessed it, capitalists and rich directly funding lobbyists and misinformation campaigns.
You agree this is an extinction level event? You agree capitalism is largely at fault?
Climate change is legitimately a very large threat to the planet and while it likely will not drive humans to extinction, it’s certainly killing lots of nature. So I don’t think calling it “extinction level” is inaccurate.
And yea, capitalism definitely has at least a part of the fault.
But again, these things are complicated and any discussion around them must reflect that with nuance. It’s hard to say if climate change would have happened regardless of capitalism (edit: i.e. climate change could still have happened if we had some other kind of society) - it could be.
Ok. So imagine a world that progressed technologically like we did until the 70s, but it’s some kind of decentralized communism focusing on democracy at work. (Business is worker owned and operated)
In the 70s, do they still suppress the science of climate change?
I can’t say for sure, but it seems far less likely to me. Thoughts?
I think I agree with you, it seems less likely, but we can’t know. But also, society is not a choice between A and B. You may as well be hypothesising about what would have happened in an anarchist society, or dictatorial or monarchy or whatever.
I think this kinda falls into what OP is complaining about again. We can’t change what happened before the 1970s. What does it help to theorycraft like we had a time machine? I’m much more interested in what we can do today about tomorrow, and I think that discussion would probably also be a lot more productive.
There’s been a push for this in a lot of the media I consume. Usually they push the solar punk aesthetic as something to work towards.
Last year I started a worker co-op that works at assisting not for profit housing. I pay my bills, but I’m the only one working full-time so far. I’ve also been working on having perennial plant food growing in my neighborhood. I’ve planted fruit trees and other varieties of fruits and vegetables that grow without much care.
What do you do?
See, now this is helpful as a way to engage people with ideas they might not be aware of. We need more comments like this.
I appreciate that.
The internet in general is pretty negative. Something you said earlier reminded me of a quote that stuck with me. I can’t remember who said it but ‘the future is built on the present. What are you building today?’
It’s easy to complain, it’s probably my favorite hobby, but what can we do to smash capitalism? Personally, I think it’s co-ops. Worker co-ops. Housing co-ops. Service co-ops. Let’s shed our corporate overlords and build something for eachother.
What are you doing? What do you think we should be moving towards?
I try to limit my meat consumption and consumption in general. I bike to work. I vote for politicians that care about doing something about climate change.
I wish I had good candidates and could bike to work. You’re pretty lucky