Look. I'm not trying to start another pointless struggle session. Far from that, I want each and every one of us to confront this most strange attempt at multilateralism by two of our favourite existing socialisms.

There's no substantial article on the environment. Not a single word on climate or pollution. And nothing on labour issues.

I get that the whole thing is brand new and the member countries will probably amend to add more to the document in later stages.

But now is the point the heads of governments go back to their respective legislative body for ratification. Again, nothing on labour, the environment or the climate.

I want us Chapos to confront the likelihood that existing socialist experiments are faltering, even abandoning, a key promise of socialism to workers: reducing work hours for more leisure time. That, and no idea how trade is going to connect to the climate crisis.

  • LibsEatPoop2 [he/him]
    4·
    4 years ago

    bruh. chill.

    i mentioned this elsewhere too, but this line of thinking really reminds of libs who defended Kamala's Pell Grant shit. "At least it helps some people. Bernie never even got anything done. He's too idealistic." Or my parents who call socialism too idealistic and love compromise. Like, ruthlessly criticizing socialists/anarchists was Marx's favorite pastime. idk, why you're against that.

    • Sphincter_Spartan [any,comrade/them]
      2·
      4 years ago

      The difference is that Kamala is one of the people insuring that nothing more can be done. Those like her could do more, but choose not to. China has done what it can do given its situation, and lifted millions from poverty while slowly supplanting the US doing it, that's why it's unreasonable for western leftists to decide it's not good enough when we have repeatedly failed to obtain anything beyond some nice concessions.

      • LibsEatPoop2 [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        yeah fair. i think saying "China has done what it can do given its situation" is an unfalsifiable statement. The same is said for the dems which we know is bullshit given just how much information there is calling them out on their shit, and what we know of the history of the dems and neoliberalism in general. but it's much harder to know the reality when it's on the other side of the world, in a completely different language and on completely different websites. you kinda just have to trust the govt which, i mean, isn't convincing anyone who doesn't already trust them. idk, i just felt the case for socialism (or, you know, state capitalism) was so much stronger and easier to defend with the SU. But I wasn't alive then so maybe it would be just as hard.

        • Sphincter_Spartan [any,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I don't think that's unfalsifiable, you could prove it wrong by giving a solid argument that they could have done significantly more than they have. As you say, the same has been said for dems and is clearly bullshit, meaning that it is falsifiable, because you can easily show how much more the dems could do if they cared. It's definitely easier to defend for the USSR, they accomplished more than China regarding workers rights and quality of life, but they're gone and the CCP survived, because the CCP has managed to tie western economies to itself so that actions taken to damage China will almost all damage those western economies. But because of this, developing workers rights as much as the USSR wasn't possible, for the sake of attracting that western capital. Chinas methods are harder to defend because they don't help their people as much, but they have kept them around