Is this what you mean because its what you are saying with conventionally defined capitalism.

Imagine if since the Industrial Revolution socialism had spread around the globe lifting everyone out of poverty. That’s a **** ton more consumption than what happened under capitalism. We didn’t know for a while the extent to which pumping carbon into the atmosphere was bad so socialism doesn’t solve that problem. And we didn’t have safe alternate means to produce power for a while either. I do think socialism would likely have better met the challenges of climate change once known.

Dont underestimate the « waste » value on consumption from a capitalist view point .
Socialism being more polluters then capitalism is far far from certain .

Imho the problem of overconsumption and climate change is far more due because of debt and globalization instead of capitalism or socialism .

Then the conjecture becomes there are certain special words, including socialism and capitalisms that people mean to talk around but without any intent to use shared definitions for the words. You all use them like they have certain definitions but most certainly wouldn't agree on what you were saying if you had to remove the words and replace them with your intended definitions for them.

wtf do you guys think these words mean!?

like that.

I'm really unclear on what your logic is. Can you illustrate your thoughts with an example or something?

Yes, it's no co-incidence that america leads the world in food waste while being the most capitalistically organised.

Debt and globalisation are features of capitalism. You can have socialism with globalisation too, of course, but capitalism demands the highest version of it, the most interconnected world where instead of, for example, having the boring fruits and vegetables and meats that are produced locally and in season, we all have the option of getting any fruit or veg or meat at any time.

In terms of debt, I'd probably feel a little underqualified to talk about this with any authority, but my guess would be that a political transition to socialism would require a whole bunch of debt, to pay for nationalisation and infrastructure and more social services and so on, but that these things end up paying for themselves and then some down the line. The alternative, revolution, means seizing a whole ton of private property, i.e. those who have benefitted from privatisation over the last ~50 years or so wouldn't be paid off.

Can u name a place where the ability to owing private property isn’t allowed ??
I have no idea why u keep bringing this up .

My theory is that he doesn't think he's a troll, he genuinely thinks he's centrist, and he thinks he's doing a good thing by exposing us excessive leftists to flaws in our logic. And that the way to do that is by asserting that the way we're using words isn't the way he's using words.

Got to say I agree with the bolded. Socialism is very concerned with people, gravely concerned with people one would say.

Because its the standard definition of socialism. Chatgtp gives these:

ya but you are using the word centrist but who knows what you mean by it?

So dictatorships and the extreme threshold of socialism aka communism is the standards of socialism ?
Lol ?

And again , they still can own private property too ? Interesting ….

What u call Canada and many Europeans countries then ?

Fwiw I don’t understand why you conflict ownership of the means of production equally with private proprietary right .
Both are not mutually inclusive.

those were the places listed that you effectively can't own private property.
sort of

Capitalist because they have strong private property rights
I think you are saying that socialism to you means 'no ownership of the means of production' and that this is no synonymous with no property rights.

What does one own with regard to property rights in a nation where there is no ownership of the means of production?

Strong proprietary right is what is capitalism ?
I thought it was about private production of the means ?



The state owning the production of the means can still pays is citizen and those citizen could pay stuff and own some material ***** .

There is vast degrees of socialism.
U even can have a mixed economy .

I agree with you on panic and I also think focusing on those who dont believe it's an issue is badly misguided. The argument about capitalism vs socialism is one of many luxuries we cannot afford.

The problem we have is with the leadership/etc on the side who do believe it's a serious problem and who do listen to the science. They make small efforts. It's like a policy of appeasment which is a particularly stupid approach when the 'enemy' is mathematics.

Socialism broadly implemented across the world would have raised everyone’s standard of living rather than keeping large portions of the world destitute like capitalism did. Raising the standard of living means building infrastructure and increased personal consumption. The sum carbon release from that may have been greater than what capitalism generated with its unequal distribution of wealth.

based on what ?
its possible to grow economically in a responsible manner.
yes it would cost more (or less profitable) and that is something capitalism cant accept even for the concept of the "greater good".

Yes of course it’s possible, once you recognize the problem and have alternatives. For many years from the Industrial Revolution onward this wasn’t the case. Socialism or capitalism doesn’t change that. Under socialism many more people would have had a higher standard of living than under capitalism. That means more energy usage and more pollution. 15% of the world or whatever living in an industrialized state under capitalism vs a bigger number under socialism. Even if populations under socialism aren’t as driven by consumerism (which they might still be) you still wind up with much more consumption of resources than impoverished societies. I think people are misunderstanding me as advocating for capitalism when I’m not. I just think laying all the blame on capitalism is not really accurate.

Assuming you're on this thing where you believe the history you've been taught, whereby it's socialism or communism rather than the combination of straightforward Russian jingoism and individual psychopathy that drove Stalin to kill his millions, or point to other communist failures, it may behoove you to consider the possibility you've been outright lied to in the form of revisionist history, or only given partial truths about the respective natures of socialism and capitalism. One of my guiding principles is that the nature of social reproduction leads to the possibility that those who have educated me have a vested interest in having me believe certain ideas about human nature and the nature of the world and leave out pockets of history that might contradict them and underline those bits of history that reinforce those ideas. What if you've been lied to?

I don’t know where u use your 15% number of higher usage but it’s clear to me that elevating people out of poverty and one rich guy uses of energy isn’t at all the same by a huge margin ….

It's easy to imagin a socialist world conserving resources and caring for the environment far better. Whether it was possible to avoid exploiting such short term gains without becoming too authoritarian is debatable - something that imo is changing rapidly.

I guess it's possible. Where would I find the correct interpretations of the history of socialism?

Also, getting back to the climate change, which is this thread's sui generis (that's probably not the correct usage, but damnit it sounds smart), I picked up a book at the library called "A Traveler's Guide to the End of the World" by David Gessner. Seems to be right up the alley of the "Panickers" in the thread. I'm not a Panic! member, but I always like to read things I disagree with and see if there's anything that will modify my opinion.

I don’t really get what’s so hard to understand. There have historically been far far more poor people than rich. Bringing them out of poverty at a time when all energy was dirty would have resulted in more climate change. The 15% was just a guess of the share of the world that was industrialized during the Industrial Revolution. I’m happy to be corrected on that.

The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber (now sadly deceased) and David Werngrow, two anthropologists, discusses the various ways in history that societies have organised themselves and seeks to challenge ideas about there being only one fixed human nature and one way we naturally arrange our body politic. It does not explicitly cover the history of socialism or communism, I'm not sure what book or video does, and as with much anthropology it can be a little dry with a lot of data, but it's worth it to uncover the often surprising history of some of the facets of our society, focussing in particular on the concept of freedom and how it came to dominate western europe and ultimately north america.

The need of energy for example is far different when u live in a snowy country and when your not .
So the cost of elevating people out of poverty from energy consumption , housing spending ,etc can be massively different .

I can’t imagine how much a billionaire is equivalent in energy consumption alone (owning a private jet ?) to elevated people out of poverty in a southern country .

Fwiw maybe we have different definition of poverty but I don’t believe someone not owning a car or a house is at a poverty level .

Here is a thought .
Just living in a place like Vietnam I guess , all u need is a solar panel , electric scooter and your good to go with all your energy need .