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.

    • Sl00k@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nordic countries are currently blowing the US out of the water on every measurable metric so you might want to rethink that argument.

        • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sounds like your definition of “socialism” is (like Cato’s) “a state that is easy to criticise”. ACS did are some of the most socialist governments. They are clever about it for sure but that is why they are so inconvenient. Hell look as Norway socialising profits a from oil exploration to lift an entire nation out of poverty.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You what, mate? They’re among the most socialist nations in the world, more so than Argentina or China

            • psud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are using a cold war definition of socialism. It’s outdated

              Socialism isn’t the opposite of democracy

              Socialism is what social democracies do.

            • Sl00k@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your wiki links first sentence says it’s within socialism which would make them socialist.

              Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism

              • psud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Funnily enough Wikipedia’s entry for Saudi Arabia doesn’t use socialism anywhere in it, and Venezuela only has “socialist” in political party names

                I wonder if to be socialist you need to implement social policies for the benefit of the people rather than for the benefit of the government (by preventing revolt)

          • traveler01@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The data shows it’s stagnated. It’s a common symptom between western european economies. The more they lean left, the worse their economy gets:

            Their GDP

            • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If they are stagnating it’s despite leaning TO THE RIGHT - and hard - over the past 20 years. There are very few truly socialist parties left in Europe and very few are in power. Definitely not recently in France. Their stagnation and exploding inequality is due to capitalism taking over.

              It’s like California - a poor mixture of hopeful socialism and neoliberal cynical Reaganism.

              To drive the point home Macron is quite a bit pro capitalism right wing politician. Not any other way. P

                • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Funny. That is the fallacy you’re commuting with capitalism. Oligarchy / widespread poverty is a feature of most systems we’ve invented so far. But for you that is deformation of capitalism and a feature only of socialism. Go figure. No true Scotsman for you either.

                  And about France - who would have thought that world history and politics is complicated!? (Not Cato. If all you read is Cato bullshit, you get a very simplistic understanding of the world)

                  • traveler01@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I never did say poverty wasn’t not existent in capitalist systems. I’ve said though that capitalism helped decrease poverty races over the last century.

                    When the Berlin Wall was up, to which side people wanted to run?

    • Blaze (he/him)@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of Western Europe have social programs (free education, free healthcare, etc.) and made it. The G7 counts France, Germany and Italy