Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
Well… no. It never was. Even the USA is highly intrusive and protectionnist. Also, state capitalism ? In you other responses you talk about China like it’s not a capitalist country. China is the main example of state capitalism.
I think you are confusing capitalism with something else.
The wikipedia article is a good start if you are interested.
State capitalism is a bullshit excuse that ML’s came up with why every IRL attempt at socialism fails.
China has not always been nearly as market driven especially from the late 80s and earlier. They loosened in the 1990s just like India did. Does this get taught in modern history? That’s a serious question as high school was before these events.
Finally if you think wikipedia is a good source you are in no position to be determining how educated on a subject the other person is. If wikipedia really covers the extent of your knowledge on a subject then you really only know the basics. I’d suggest starting with Mankiew’s Intro texts found on the open seas as those will give you an actual basic understanding of modern economics.
Ahah ! So you just change the definition of a word to make it fit your worldview. And yes wikipedia is not a great source but it usually cover the basic stuff. I gave you the link to get you started but I see you’re not interested in educating yourself about the subject.
I mean, again, you think capitalism mean limited state intervention. It does not. By definition.
I’ll let you in you own world with your own words and custom definitions !
Just because someone makes a claim, in this case that the state owning the means of production means the resulting system is still capitalist as opposed to something else, does not make that claim a fact. Just because Marxists believe in state capitalism does not make their views fact. I fundamentally reject the notion that a state controlling the means of production is in any way the same as private ownership as the ways you can engage with private business and the state are very different.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a specific philosophy has the only valid definition of a concept.
Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
The basis of capitalism is the least amount of government intrusion possible.
Well… no. It never was. Even the USA is highly intrusive and protectionnist. Also, state capitalism ? In you other responses you talk about China like it’s not a capitalist country. China is the main example of state capitalism.
I think you are confusing capitalism with something else.
The wikipedia article is a good start if you are interested.
State capitalism is a bullshit excuse that ML’s came up with why every IRL attempt at socialism fails.
China has not always been nearly as market driven especially from the late 80s and earlier. They loosened in the 1990s just like India did. Does this get taught in modern history? That’s a serious question as high school was before these events.
Finally if you think wikipedia is a good source you are in no position to be determining how educated on a subject the other person is. If wikipedia really covers the extent of your knowledge on a subject then you really only know the basics. I’d suggest starting with Mankiew’s Intro texts found on the open seas as those will give you an actual basic understanding of modern economics.
Ahah ! So you just change the definition of a word to make it fit your worldview. And yes wikipedia is not a great source but it usually cover the basic stuff. I gave you the link to get you started but I see you’re not interested in educating yourself about the subject.
I mean, again, you think capitalism mean limited state intervention. It does not. By definition.
I’ll let you in you own world with your own words and custom definitions !
Just because someone makes a claim, in this case that the state owning the means of production means the resulting system is still capitalist as opposed to something else, does not make that claim a fact. Just because Marxists believe in state capitalism does not make their views fact. I fundamentally reject the notion that a state controlling the means of production is in any way the same as private ownership as the ways you can engage with private business and the state are very different.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a specific philosophy has the only valid definition of a concept.
A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s
We weren’t destroying the planet until the industrial revolution.