If we consider the USSR and China were/are behind colossal ecological disasters of their own making, for example the near totall loss of the Aral sea or the Three Rivers Dam, we might have to realize it’s industrial nations over consuming resources that is the real problem.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it’s happening.
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 !
If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.
That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.
the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked…
They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.
The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.
The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.
This is true but not a necessity of capitalism. Pigouvian can put the destruction of the commons back in that box.
If we consider the USSR and China were/are behind colossal ecological disasters of their own making, for example the near totall loss of the Aral sea or the Three Rivers Dam, we might have to realize it’s industrial nations over consuming resources that is the real problem.
Before Capitalism Humanity drove mammoths into exctintion, and that was a hunter-gatherer society.
https://www.earth.com/news/humans-drove-woolly-mammoths-to-extinction/
What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it’s happening.
Yet China is responsible for one of the greatest intentional ecological disasters of the last 50 years.
It isn’t the economic system. It is large entitled industrialized populations that are the issue.
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.
We weren’t destroying the planet until the industrial revolution.
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 !
A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s