Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 months ago

Isn't it true that capitalism is the cause of anthropomorphic climate change and that under global communism there'd be no climate change?

As a progressive Democrat, this is what I believe.

The Soviet Union had no carbon footprint and it wasn't until they gave up on communism that the former Soviet states started contributing to climate change.  Other states that had zero carbon emissions: Maoist China, Cuba, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Khmer Rouge Cambodia.  These countries were utopian paradises and I wish America could be like them.

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago
    Favourite answer

    Capitalism is messy. You don't hear about people drinking toxic water in heavenly places like China unless you live in Mississippi...

  • zeno
    Lv 7
    9 months ago

    That is false. Now lazy liberal. Explain why

    All the communist countries like china and

    Russia have the MOST POLLUTION and

    Are causing environmental issues but you

    Only blame America? China and Russia dump

    Tons of sewage and plastic in the ocean every

    Year with absolutely no complaint from all the

    Fake news and internet liars like you. Got it?

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    Karl Marx was right about the injustices of capitalism, but he was wrong about the remedy. Capitalism’s biggest fault is that individual merit only determines success at the beginning. As time goes by, wealth gathers into the hands of a minority, where it becomes a decisive advantage in the pursuit of more wealth. The measure of man moves from his genes to his bank accounts, and then the possession of wealth becomes the supreme survival trait, easily overmatching strength, dexterity, agility, stamina, and, in the end, even intelligence.¹

    The reason it works is the availability of exosomatic energy resources, chiefly fossil fuels. As long as money can buy gasoline, rich men can pretend that fossil power, put to use in engines, is power inherent in them as men. No one without money-privileged access to nature’s accumulated stores of exosomatic energy can compete with those who do.

    That’s what Ayn Rand left out of Atlas Shrugged. It’s a fantasy in which things work out, of course, as its writer contrived, but it is a fantasy very seductive to rich people, who believe it because it flatters them. Ayn Rand spoke much of “men of ability,” leaving it very strongly implied that what enabled them were their personal qualities, such as intelligence, courage or decisiveness. She spoke often of coal-burning engines and other industrial uses of fossil fuels. But she used every trick she could think of to prevent her readers from connecting the ability with the fuels and observing that her “men of ability” really weren’t so much superior to everyone else as their wealth might lead one to suppose. In real life, wealth buys such men privileged access to energy resources, which then become their enabler.

    The simple fact is, the employer merely stands between the customer and the labor. He listens, and then he points. And he’s mighty proud of the fact that he is the one who gets to do the pointing. He produces nothing himself and could be outdone by any of his workers were he to try it. Of course, it does matter whether or not the employer knows what to point at, which has a lot to do with what his personal motivation is. And that’s why capitalism is a bad system generally: most of its decision-makers are greedy, selfish bastards who only want to get rich and to hell with the world they will leave behind when they die. Visionary philosophers hoping to save the world will be as rare among business executives as they are among politicians.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.