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.

  • StinkyRedMan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    111·
    1 year ago

    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.

    You should look a bit more into the world if you didn’t notice how good capitalism is at making the poors poorer.

    • traveler01@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      49·
      1 year ago

      There’s tons of data showing that capitalism actually makes the average joe a lot richer.

        • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
          23·
          1 year ago

          Prior to capitalism, the homeless would just die every winter, so I think any number >0 is actually an improvement

          • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            I mean that’s not really something capitalism did, it’s just that the country is so big that it has places with mild climates. Well, I guess paying for homeless peoples’ bus tickets to actually go to those places is a thing, but not quite positive especially when you look at the context of it.

              • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
                1·
                1 year ago

                Like California, which has the most homeless per-capita.

                Though those places certainly don’t have the worst winters (like Minnesota), and NY (after CA w/homelessness) does have milder winters than Chicago. In either case summers are on the mild side, too (for comparison, being homeless in Arizona summer heat would not be good).

                Also, from wiki:

                Over the years, the city of Chicago, Illinois has gained a reputation as the city with the most homeless people, rivaling Los Angeles and New York City, although no statistical data have backed this up. The reputation stems primarily from the subjective number of beggars found on the streets rather than any sort of objective statistical census data. Indeed, from statistical data, Chicago has far less homeless per capita than peers New York, and Los Angeles, or other major cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Boston, among others

          • psud@lemmy.world
            21·
            1 year ago

            I know, the US is just a little socialist, just enough to avoid having to see elderly and poor dying in the streets

      • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Those data are carefully crafted to create that narrative. It’s pretty easy to say you’ve “lifted so many out of poverty” when you define the term to suit your needs.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Considering capitalism is based on the concept of separating average Joe from the actual value of his work, I can’t see this being true unless it has some major caveats that only make it sound good when unspoken (like comparing capitalism to some undeveloped country and saying “look, poor people live better in capitalism”).

        • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          What do you think is the mechanism by which “undeveloped” countries become “developed” countries rofl

          I’ll give you a hint, it starts with “CAPITAL” and there’s an “-ism” at the end.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            There have been empires that didn’t rely on capitalism and were successful. Comparing a country with no infrastructure to one that does and saying it’s only because of capital is not how logic works. I had a headache one day due to a hangover, your logic dictates if someone else has a headache, it must be due to a hangover. That’s fucking idiocy and you should feel bad for thinking it.