this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1353 points (96.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5575 readers
3216 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Market economies can be rid of by degree once a Socialist state is established. The Socialist revolution is the mechanism of this process.

Can you explain the Engels quote?

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't really care about the Engels quote. I want to know exactly how long you expect this to take. Because Earth isn't getting any cooler, so if this takes any more than 4 or 5 years, it isn't going to matter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's not an answer. Will it take more than 5 years to end the use of fossil fuels through this revolution?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I can't see it happening under Capitalism, that's for sure!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I really don't see what your point is with this, first you claimed Socialist states aren't Socialist because they are Marxist, but that you don't care about Marxism, and now you're asking for a guarantee of climate action within 5 years. You're all over the place. What's your goal?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This began with me asking you when and where the revolution would take place. You couldn't tell me. I explained to you that if it doesn't happen within the next five years, it won't matter and asked you if it will. You won't tell me.

You have given me zero good reasons to join these revolutionary groups that you have named to join, which have not achieved anything and apparently have no actual plans to stage a revolution.

The revolution had better both happen within the next five years and end our dependence on fossil fuels or it won't make a difference.

You don't seem to get that. You seem to think there's some sort of long-term future where capitalism slowly disappears and thus we slowly stop burning oil. That's not how civilization is going to go. It will collapse long, long before that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Are you a nihilist? I can't make a guarantee that we can establish Socialism and get rid of fossil fuels within 5 years. I can say that AES countries have been far better than average on meeting climate goals.

What exactly was the point of you claiming AES states aren't Socialist? Are you just looking to argue?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't ask if we can. You know what I asked. I asked if it will happen.

Funny that you accuse me of arguing in bad faith and yet you won't answer a simple question. Instead, you answer a question that wasn't asked.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Then the answer is that it can, and that I can't answer if it will or will not because I am not a fortune teller.

Are you doing alright?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You can't answer because you know it won't. You aren't ignorant. You know it isn't even possible to end fossil fuel dependence in five years. Not without reducing the world to living like it's the middle ages.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It's certainly doable, but it would require Socialism, and revolution within the West. Difficult, yes, but easier than returning to monkey.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 37 minutes ago (2 children)

I see. “Socialism” will be able to replace all fossil fuel-powered vehicles: cars, trucks, planes, ships AND replace all of the world’s fossil fuel power plants in the world in five years. I guess by “socialism,” you mean “magic.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

Having supremacy over Capital allows you to work against market pressures.

I have no idea what you're doing here, are you arguing for anarcho-primitivism, or are you using me as an outlet for your frustrations?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 29 minutes ago (1 children)

If you are just talking about coal-fired power plants and nothing else, you are talking about 2500 power plants.

Socialism cannot replace 2500 power plants in 5 years. It has nothing to do with supremacy over capital. It's like saying socialism could have built the Great Pyramid in 5 years. No it couldn't. You can't magically speed up processes that take a set amount of time, require people with a certain skill level, etc.

I get that you think that somehow we will be in a socialist utopia in five years, but we won't. And as the Earth heats up and the storms get worse and the wildfires choke the atmosphere, you will still be talking about the glorious revolution that will be happening any day now and save us all as the desperate climate refugees storm your home to take your food.

I'm not arguing for anything. You are. And what you are arguing for will not save humanity in the time frame that is needed. Because nothing will.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 24 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago) (1 children)

You don't need to replace everything, you can replace as necessary and shut down everything else. It absolutely has to do with supremacy over Capital. However, you already gave yourself away:

I'm not arguing for anything

You're just arguing as a personal outlet, that's not healthy. I can't tell if you're a nihilist doomer, or just going through a rough time, but this isn't healthy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago) (1 children)

As necessary?

It's necessary to replace all of them.

Are you some sort of climate change denier?

Also, this pop psychoanalysis of yours is tiresome, Dr. Freud.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

It is not necessary to replace all of them, we can downsize consumption. Consumerism is an aspect of Capitalism, we can downsize production and energy consumption off pure renewables, if at significant cost of quality of life.

Again, though, you clearly are looking for an outlet, you don't care about logic but simply arguing to argue. I recommend you log out for a while, talk to someone IRL that cares about you. I'm saying this out of concern.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 minutes ago (1 children)

Again, Dr. Freud, your pop psychology is tiresome.

And yeah, you're clearly a climate change denier. Only a climate change denier thinks it's okay to keep using fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 minutes ago (1 children)

I literally told you we could stop using fossil fuels and run on pure renewables now at great cost in quality of life, but only under Socialism. You just read right past that to insult me.

People care about you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 minutes ago

LOL! "We could make life sucky if we just accept socialism!" Great sales technique you have there.

And much like your "arguing in bad faith" hypocrisy, your complaining about insults hypocrisy is just as silly.

Also, I'm fully aware that people care about me. Unlike you, I know what my life is about.

Gotta love a self-proclaimed socialist who acts like they're some sort of superior being.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

Probably not, but it will be able to prioritize things differently. Under socialism it doesn't matter if it is profitable to build high-speed rail, or profitable to run it thereafter, the point isn't to make money, the point is to transport people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 minutes ago (1 children)

So we have time to switch to socialism and replace all fossil fuel transport with high speed rail in enough time to stop our civilization from collapsing due to climate change? Because I doubt it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago) (1 children)

Maybe not. But we have to options: Socialism or Barbarism. Continuing with Capitalism is going to lead to a worse outcome, going with Socialism and working to halt climate change will result in a better outcome. Not a great one, not undoing everything in 5 years, but still a better outcome.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 minutes ago

The chances of socialism over barbarism are quite slim given the long history of humanity.

On the other hand, the other guy thinks that you can replace coal plants "as needed," so at least you have a realistic outlook.