ITT: The environmental consequences of precapitalistic modes of production confuse lemmies to defend a nonsense statement in a totally different paradigm.
So China must be a paragon of eco-friendly, right? Right? Like, you wouldn't place all your bets in a pseudo-imaginary concept that has never been able to materialize and when it does it only seems to favor fascist behavior, right? Right? It must also mean that there aren't capitalist nations the means and innovation for protection of the environment, right? Right? You totally aren't setting yourself up for a scale you will define completely subjectively to suit your point, right? Right?
I kinda disagree with this. There's too many of us in India. We are replaceable wage-slaves - since we are "resources" in high supply, our demand is less. And therefore, capitalists have a justification to pay us shit wages, because "it's the free market". Maybe if some of us were aborted, we'd have had an assurance to quality life, if not economic growth and technology transfer.
That is literally eco-facist rethoric. Stop trying to shift the blame away from capitalism when it's obviously the problem
I just read a few essays on Marx vs Malthus briefly, and it kinda makes sense why this is an eco-fascist, right-wing and pro-euthanasic rhetoric. Although I'm still not sure on how Marx tried to address stabilizing population in a post-communist world - does he equate better condition to cause population rates to drop? Or that a highly-efficient work-force under communism leads to high-employment rates, scientific advancements and possibly newer ways to sustain a huge population?
capitalists have a justification to pay us shit wages
That's still a capitalism problem. 10 people working produces more than 10x the wealth of 1 person's labor. It's capitalism that causes the uneven distribution of that greater wealth.
The earth has enough resources to give a good quality of life to everyone living on it and more besides. The failure of capitalism to provide well planned urban communities, fair wages or QoL is not reflective of human nature.
There is not too many of us in India. India is an urbanizing society, meaning that there is a large amount of migration from rural areas to urban areas, leaving urban areas with a surplus population and driving down urban wages. This is a process that all capitalist countries went through at some point in their lifespans, including England, whose example Marx analyses 200 years ago. Back when its population was on the order of 10 million (it is over 80 million today).
By providing full employment, the communist countries were able to industrialize very rapidly while maintaining decent wages. It is a capitalism problem.
Fail enough, I would say. Job migration in a culturally sensitive place like India has been disastrous, and often at times, the tribal folks are at the receiving end of this - like I see in places like Jharkhand and Odisha. I understand that wage theft and stagnation is very real, as I've seen scummy CHWTIA companies practice this proactively - but I was talking with respect to unemployment here. But from what I believe, doesn't this idea fail against meritocracy and job specialization. Or is my suffering-reductionist view a convenient narrative for proletariat to self-gaslight themselves, and a nice fodder for right-wing eugenics narrative?
I don’t even know if I want to argue anymore. Every endangered group needs a sanctuary. It’s like living museum. Curious and fascinating but thankfully with zero power or chance to get it.
Tho commies could clash with the alt right and both disappear while normal ppl live on
Okay, but how much real communities can exist before a capitalist fucking kills them from Terraism and makes them a gorram capitalist?
