Ethical Argument for Communism

The climate change is a meme.
The climate has been always changing from warm to cold and while we may be speeding it up, it's going to happen eventually even if we all stopped using modern technology and went back innawoods.

The whole thing is just about a correlative analysis pissing match.

Is this for real? Do you post on 4pol too? I totally believe in Exxon shills, just surprised to see you here. And tolerated no less. wew.

Singapore is a fucking dystopian hell hole.

Those countries do not actually have any agriculture or manufacture of their own and make most of their money on the finance sector or services.

The argument against capitalism should not be ethical but a matter of efficiency.
the soviet union took the poorest country in europe and in a generation turned it in in a world power but after capitalism took over russia it became a horrendous place to live.

IIRC, an engineer came up with a $500 billion plan to solve Arctic albedo shift by pumping up water from the deeps up to the surface, where it freezes. That's peanuts when you consider the many trillions spent by the US alone on its military. There are solutions out there. We're just not funding them. Remember, the 2008 bailout was more than NASA's budget across its lifetime in current monetary values. If we die due to climate change, it will unequivocally be capitalism's fault. This world sucks.

two countries that have highest porportion of foreign labour force in asia. I think for singapore figures go up to 900 000.

If you are exchanging your labour for money its in your intrest to organize and achieve worker control; or maybe if you work hard enough you can get out of your position.

The success of a few micro-states doesn't invalidate the arguments against capitalism from a pragmatic standpoint OP. All you have to do is look at a few stats. According to the UN over 7 million people starve to death every year despite enough food existing to feed 1.5 times the world's population. That means that capitalism kills more people every 15 years than communism supposedly did in 100, and that's just from starvation. It doesn't include war, preventable disease, lack of shelter, or lack of water. If the purpose of an economic system is to distribute resources effectively, then capitalism is clearly not practical. No practical system would allow simultaneous epidemics of starvation and obesity, or people-less homes to exist alongside homeless people.

There's also the issue of climate change that capitalism fuels. This is because of the mechanics of the marketplace. Since abhorrent environmental practices (pollution, destruction of forests, etc) net higher profits, companies that more damaging to the environment will do better than companies that don't. This means that those polluting companies will re-invest more into their business and out-compete their more ethical rivals, systematically purging the market and leaving only the worst of the worst. This same process means that endless expansion is a necessary feature of capitalism, since any company that doesn't net ever higher profits will be out-competed and cease to exist. This is obviously not sustainable on a planet with finite resources, and therefore completely impractical. This could be mitigated with government intervention, but the vast resources wielded by the global capitalist elite mean that the governments of the world are effectively in their pocket, and won't do much to oppose them. So they will sit idly by as capitalism quite literally endangers our existence as a species.

So Hong Kong and Singapore being successful doesn't proof jack shit about capitalism's effectiveness. It's a global system that needs to be examined as such, and on that level it's a fucking disaster.

Yeah, and when people tried to get engineers and climate change activists to shill for it faggots like Spain just bawwww'd and said we all may as well give up.

500bn is quite a lot. Got link? Also, I don't think that would be enough. Pretty much the whole world is warming. The albedo effect is diminishing because of the additional radiation being refracted back at us thanks to atmospheric ghg.

this, itself, is irony

...

Why does this kind of economic advance matters if it requires an army of wage slaves with shit life conditions and ridiculous amounts of investment from first world countries.

Actually, advancement under capitalism has been quite slow compared to the rapid industrialization achieved under Stalin and Mao. A planned economy can produce extremely rapid technological advancement because the government is free to direct funding towards long-term scientific projects rather than the short-term profit-making ventures encouraged by a free market. Communism would be making phones obsolete while capitalism is still trying to sell you the iPhone 11.

The down side to such planned economies in the past has been the bureaucracy required to properly direct funding to supply all of the basic goods people need and want. Economies are spectacularly complex, and solving them on paper requires an intimate understanding of a vast number of different industries and demands. I think we actually have the technology to successfully implement it now, although I'd still prefer to go for a "simulated market" system rather than trying to plan every detail centrally.

As for ethical arguments, the basic one is that communism could more or less completely eliminate suffering caused by unmet material needs. Of course, the caveat to this entire post is that it must be implemented correctly in order to work. I'm not sure humans can be trusted to implement it correctly.

Technically the obesity epidemic is caused by eating the wrong sort of food. If people are on a healthy diet, they won't want to eat more than is necessary to meet their energy needs. I agree with the rest of your post though.

The problem is that poor people can't afford healthy food, nor do they have the time to cook properly.

I think I read it in Scientific American, I'm looking for the issue right now. In the mean time, have this: livescience.com/57968-pumps-could-freeze-arctic-sea-ice.html

So you are saying that humans have nothing to do with it since it has happened before when their were no humans?

It has never happened this quickly in nature.
Seriously, the science is well understood. There is no debate among scientists about whether anthropogenic global warming is happening despite the amount of money the fossil fuel industry has spent trying to confuse the issue. The only question is how bad it will be for us.

How???

Have the last 30 years not completely BTFO your ideology?

when i think of my ideal society, i, too, think of a place where you get caned for spitting out sunflower seeds

At the end of the Permian period, the Siberian Traps erupted, quickly heating up the atmosphere and melting permafrost. This, in turn, released gigantic amounts of methane from the accumulation of dead plant matter within it. We are effectively doing the same thing right now when we release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect was well understood long before anyone mentioned climate change. It's provable that carbon dioxide and methane emissions cause it.

We can't avoid a potential demise at the hands of volcanic eruptions or a giant meteor, but we can avoid destroying ourselves by releasing the methane hydrate in the Siberian tundra.

...