There’s clearly a lean to the left side of things in Lemmy instances, with many people attacking people at the right.

In some cases regarding the climate crisis, there’s people blaming it on capitalism while hinting that communism/socialism are the solution to the climate crisis, because somehow having the state controlling the entire economy will lead to stop CO2 emissions.

A bit from the article:

The best way to protect the environment is to get rich. That way, there is enough money not only to meet the needs of ordinary people, but also to pay for cleaner power plants and better water-treatment facilities. Since capitalism is the best way to create wealth, humanity should stick with it.

Not the first time I’ve heard about this concept, and the more i look into the world the more I agree with it. Being green is kind of a luxury that not many people can afford, and the poorer people are the less they can afford green technology.

  • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    What a croc - never trust anything “left vs right” from the Cato institute. Cato has never seen a problem that capitalist billionaires could not solve and “communism” did not create.

    Either way - capitalism does not care to solve climate change because we allowed the capitalists to externalise the costs. If we prices climate damage into the cost of goods - sure capitalism could perhaps be less than evil. But of course capitalism breed oligarchs and oligarchy and thus markets were deformed to benefit the oligarchs (and socialise risks while privatising profits).

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      You know how you improve capitalism? You add a very large dose of socialism

    • traveler01@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      But of course capitalism breed oligarchs and oligarchy and thus markets were deformed to benefit the oligarchs (and socialise risks while privatising profits).

      In my opinion when you start having oligarchs and this amount of wealth inequality, it’s only a symptom that the state is failing to do what was created to do, at-least in theory.

      The state should be only a regulator, more like a referee in the market. Currently everywhere in western democracies the state is failing to do it. We have the lower income people getting taxed to hell, either directly or by proxy while the uber-rich are influencing the state regulation directly.

      • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Do not take this as a personal attack but your perspective is naive. All around the world capitalists argue for libertarianism or other forms of state stepping back from regulating oligarchy. It’s a feature of capitalism to aim for oligarchy. At least in practice.

        Just like 20th century Soviet/Chinese/Cuban communism did not prevent oligarchs. Neither does the current crop of capitalism. They both - in practice- created easy path to oligarchy.

        • traveler01@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I understand your point, that’s why I consider that the state should be an independent regulator. What’s happening right now is that due to corruption the state is failing to do it so.

          • psud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m changing the user note I added to you from “right wing nut” to “confused socialist”

        • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Exactly. It’s Cato directly that it arguing for unregulated market in an oligarchy. So OP needs to be clear who wrote the source.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. All regulation is some form of restriction essentially adopted to try and fix a flaw in capitalism.