Incremental progress is not illegitimate. It’s just never going to be enough to solve the problem that is capitalism. If it were, the New Deal would have fixed this system and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Social democracies aren’t socialism. They have unions, co-ops, but they don’t own the means of production. They are capitalism with heavy regulation and strong social policies. And they are already regressing. If we were a more socially democratic, my opinion might be different, But, historically, the reality that capitalism decays into fascism would still be true.
Why do you assume that socialist systems won’t also experience a gravitational pull towards fascism? In my opinion that’s universal across all political systems. Also aren’t all extant “state owns the means of production” counties quite fascist?
Wow, you’re really going there. I agree with your thinking. I think of it this way. Would I rather deal with climate change under a capitalist/fascist dictatorship with overconsumption and excess growth. Or would I rather deal with climate change under a tankie dictatorship with a planned economy that limits consumption and growth. I’ll pick the Marxist Leninist one. I’d rather it be an anarcho communist one. But with multiple factions vying for power and trying to control huge populations, that may not be possible.
So, do we agree that climate policy has been mixed-bag both in “The West” and China? (Everybody is touting their green tech while still building new fossil fuel extraction and plants)
Even if you were sure a tankie government would deliver better on climate change, what are the odds that “the revolution” leads to a full fascist government instead?
Incremental progress is not illegitimate. It’s just never going to be enough to solve the problem that is capitalism. If it were, the New Deal would have fixed this system and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Ok…so because the New Deal didn’t… overthrow capitalism forever… therefore working within the system is pointless?
Yes 🙌 . Read Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg to understand why.
And the Nordic countries just don’t exist?
Social democracies aren’t socialism. They have unions, co-ops, but they don’t own the means of production. They are capitalism with heavy regulation and strong social policies. And they are already regressing. If we were a more socially democratic, my opinion might be different, But, historically, the reality that capitalism decays into fascism would still be true.
Why do you assume that socialist systems won’t also experience a gravitational pull towards fascism? In my opinion that’s universal across all political systems. Also aren’t all extant “state owns the means of production” counties quite fascist?
Wow, you’re really going there. I agree with your thinking. I think of it this way. Would I rather deal with climate change under a capitalist/fascist dictatorship with overconsumption and excess growth. Or would I rather deal with climate change under a tankie dictatorship with a planned economy that limits consumption and growth. I’ll pick the Marxist Leninist one. I’d rather it be an anarcho communist one. But with multiple factions vying for power and trying to control huge populations, that may not be possible.
So, do we agree that climate policy has been mixed-bag both in “The West” and China? (Everybody is touting their green tech while still building new fossil fuel extraction and plants)
Even if you were sure a tankie government would deliver better on climate change, what are the odds that “the revolution” leads to a full fascist government instead?
Surely the Right outguns us 10 to 1?
At least read what he posted before replying. We don’t need to build another reddit where people just rage at each other on behalf of their team.
For the record, when I posted that reply the parent only read “yes 🙌”
I was saltier than I would like to be in retrospect though, I cut it out of a comment.