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.

  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    42·
    1 year ago

    This entire article misses the point entirely with what socialism is. Socialism is just about who owns the company. All the principles that apply to capitalism also mostly apply to socialism, except it doesn’t pool money to the wealthy who are simply extracting value from people instead of their own skills.

    Socialism can have wealthy people. Socialism does not mean state owned (that’s communism and they’re absolutely 100% not interchangeable like the article implies).

    Communism could affect climate change because it’s effectively a dictatorship on what companies can do. Socialism can affect climate change because it effectively isn’t profit over humanity.

    Capitalism is literally driving climate change the wrong direction. It’s asinine to be like, “no, no, let’s give it a bit more time.”

    Edit: this article is why folks attack many people on the right. It’s straight up lying and deceiving the reader with misinformation.

    • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
      1·
      1 year ago

      Socialism means the workers own the means of production. The state is the vanguard of the workers so the companies are “state owned” in socialism

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        11·
        1 year ago

        Communism is when the company is state owned. Socialism is when it’s owned by the workers. They are not the same. Financial incentives that exist in capitalism also exist in socialism. They do not exist to the same degree in communism.

        Socialism is closer to saying all companies are co-ops.

        You’re referring to specifically a subset of socialism, that is literally called state socialism that shares many aspects with communism.

        But, in general, socialism does not have state ownership as a tenet of its belief.

        • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
          1·
          1 year ago

          Socialism has to. socialism has the workers controlling the means of production and the state is a vanguard of the workers that manages to companies

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            You are espousing one person’s interpretation of a concept. It is not the only one. It wasn’t even said by someone who adhered well to their own rules in practice.

            Socialism does support the idea that all companies are co-ops. If you don’t work for that company, you do not own part of it.