Jump to content

[Game] Last one to post wins!


Pleeb

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

yes pollution went up under Mao (as a result of rapid industrialization)... I never said otherwise

Curious what you meant by humanity's downfall then? I assumed you meant capitalism was destroying the environment, which is really more a symptom of affluence than of capitalism, and could be mostly avoided by implementing a carbon tax

And, let me rephrase: Capitalism is inefficient compared to the alternatives? If all the systems suck, that's not a very good argument against capitalism

I live in a castle and have two tulpas, Kanade-chan and Uncannyfellow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Breloomancer

    31683

  • TB

    12568

  • Ice909

    8476

  • Luminesce

    8165

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

guys!!! i have the solution!!! let's all just pretend to be happy and sing songs and dance around the fire

 

anyone caught not smiling will be executed and put on the fire! it will reduce human overpopulation problem!

Edited by aubreyshield

Aubrey (they/them) speaks like this and Shield (they/them) speaks like this... haha just kidding. Ah, memories.

Our profile picture is of Shield, because that's who mostly uses this account...

[the outdated lore]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did mean that capitalism is destroying the environment, however I don't have a problem with the increasing pollution of China under Mao because at that point the effects of climate change were farther away and industrialization was necessary in order for China to get on the same level as other countries productively, that being said Mao was responsible for a lot of death and I am not in favor of him overall.

 

I don't think that a carbon tax would be able to save the world from global warming because all the politicians are completely in the pocket of the corporations so even if they did pass a carbon tax, they would put in plenty of loopholes so that the major contributors to global warming don't have to actually pay it.

 

capitalism is bad. a good alternative is communism. the hard part is actually getting there; communism has never actually happened on a large scale, and every attempt to reach communism has failed before it got there or is still ongoing. the main reason why it is so difficult to get to communism is because capitalist countries (especially the USA) do everything that they can to make sure that these attempts fail and since communist revolutions have always happened in developing countries, it is very difficult for these countries to resist these aggressions (the only country that has actually managed to thrive under these conditions is Cuba, which is currently the most sustainable country in the world). if an already developed country were to have a communist revolution, then they would have a much better shot at resisting the influence of capitalist countries.

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

I did mean that capitalism is destroying the environment, however I don't have a problem with the increasing pollution of China under Mao because... industrialization was necessary in order for China to get on the same level as other countries productively

1) Yeah, that's why I said environmental destruction is a symptom of affluence and not capitalism

2) How was it necessary? A lot of the pollution was caused by Mao ordering 600,000 backyard furnaces be built

27 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

the hard part is actually getting there; communism has never actually happened on a large scale, and every attempt to reach communism has failed before it got there or is still ongoing

This isn't an unreasonable thing to say, so long as you're consistent:

27 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

I don't think that a carbon tax would be able to save the world from global warming because all the politicians are completely in the pocket of the corporations so even if they did pass a carbon tax, they would put in plenty of loopholes so that the major contributors to global warming don't have to actually pay it.

You're comparing the pure form of communism in your imagination to capitalism after it's been ground down by reality and human nature. China polluted a lot because Mao made dumb decisions, capitalism pollutes because companies seek profit. The end result is pollution either way. The environment doesn't care why we pollute

27 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

the main reason why it is so difficult to get to communism is because capitalist countries (especially the USA) do everything that they can to make sure that these attempts fail and since communist revolutions have always happened in developing countries, it is very difficult for these countries to resist these aggressions

Sure, that happens, but you're ignoring, say, the tensions between Mao and Stalin, or the fact that Pol Pot was done in by the Viet Cong. The equation's simple: capitalism tries to maximize profit. Wars (and sanctions) are expensive. Global trade is profitable. So long as you're cooperative on the global trade front, a capitalist country has no reason to invade you. My preference for capitalism is largely based on an empirical observation: all the affluent countries have market-based economies. I don't care why that's the case. If the only reason capitalist countries succeed is because the trade they create makes foreign policy easier, so be it. Though undoubtedly, capitalism encouraging technological innovation is a large part of it

 

I live in a castle and have two tulpas, Kanade-chan and Uncannyfellow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Celestial] Hello! My name is Celestial, I'm Ranger and Gray's merge.

Where's the teleport everyone in the world to rainbow paradise option?

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Cornelia said:

How was it necessary? A lot of the pollution was caused by Mao ordering 600,000 backyard furnaces be built

 

the industrialization of China was necessary to make China self reliant and powerful enough to stand up to other powers, the way that they went about it during the great leap forward left a lot to be desired, but even if they totally messed up in the execution, the goal was good

 

47 minutes ago, Cornelia said:

You're comparing the pure form of communism in your imagination to capitalism after it's been ground down by reality and human nature. China polluted a lot because Mao made dumb decisions, capitalism pollutes because companies seek profit. The end result is pollution either way. The environment doesn't care why we pollute

 

except that if you have a functional government then people will not let your dumb decisions go through. the problems with China are not universal to all socialist countries, only to countries where people are afraid that if they show any form of dissent that they will be executed. you also convently ignored that Cuba is the most sustainable country in the world, and is also socialist

 

47 minutes ago, Cornelia said:

Sure, that happens, but you're ignoring, say, the tensions between Mao and Stalin, or the fact that Pol Pot was done in by the Viet Cong. The equation's simple: capitalism tries to maximize profit. Wars (and sanctions) are expensive. Global trade is profitable. So long as you're cooperative on the global trade front, a capitalist country has no reason to invade you.

 

sure, there are tensions between socialist countries, but they are nowhere near the level of tensions between socialist and capitalist countries. I don't really see your point about capitalist countries not having any reason to invade countries if they don't have a reason to invade them; it doesn't change the fact that capitalist countries have reason to invade socialist countries and so often do

 

47 minutes ago, Cornelia said:

My preference for capitalism is largely based on an empirical observation: all the affluent countries have market-based economies. I don't care why that's the case. If the only reason capitalist countries succeed is because the trade they create makes foreign policy easier, so be it. Though undoubtedly, capitalism encouraging technological innovation is a large part of it

 

 

it's not really a fair experiment though, since no communist country has ever existed and almost all affluent capitalist countries have been given a significant headstart over socialist countries. also, there is still plenty of trade in socialism and communism. also also, capitalism only encourages research in areas that seem immediately profitable and also encourages biased research to make certain groups look better, slowing scientific advancement

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

except that if you have a functional government then people will not let your dumb decisions go through. the problems with China are not universal to all socialist countries, only to countries where people are afraid that if they show any form of dissent that they will be executed

How did you so thoroughly miss my point? Of course if you have a functioning government things will be great! Your argument against a carbon tax essentially boiled down to "But we don't have a functioning government!" Your argument only makes sense if communism means "When the government is functioning" and capitalism means "When the government is non-functioning." Of course, China isn't the only socialist/communist country that ever existed - there's Cambodia, where Pol Pot's inability to create a proper chain of command led to 20,000 people dying within a month of him taking power, there's the Soviet Union, where historians still debate if the Holodomor was caused by Stalin's malevolence or if he was just that incompetent, and so on and so on. But by all means, do go on about the cement under capitalism!
 

Look, I ignored Cuba because there's no private media and only 5% of homes are connected to the internet. Facts about that place are nigh impossible to verify and debates about Cuba always come down to shouting matches about which facts are actually facts. Quite honestly, you citing anything about Cuba as if it's incontrovertible truth suggests that you care more about justifying communism than the truth. Several countries and some NGOs have accused Cuba of humanitarian rights violations, but we don't actually know that's the case because no one can verify much about what comes out of Cuba.

But, define communism. We are rather certain that Cuba's relaxed some of its policies and lets people own private businesses and stuff now. Your initial post was in response to Shield saying we need a mix of capitalism and socialism. If you've changed your stance over the course of the conversation, own it

As for the war thing, it's quite simple: I'm proposing that if all countries were capitalist, there would be less war than if all countries were communist

A lot of what you said feels like starting more fires than one person could possibly put out, as you've made several claims without any evidence - that the animosity between capitalist and communist countries is stronger than the animosity between competing communists countries, that capitalism slows scientific advancement - you've simply stated these things as if they were facts. If you want me to respond to your arguments... then actually make arguments. False confidence doesn't impress me

 

 

I live in a castle and have two tulpas, Kanade-chan and Uncannyfellow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or we could just have a tulpa revolution

3 hours ago, Mirichu said:

Plot twist: people actually end up being happy and they don't need to pretend anymore.

literally what i was thinking

Edited by aubreyshield

Aubrey (they/them) speaks like this and Shield (they/them) speaks like this... haha just kidding. Ah, memories.

Our profile picture is of Shield, because that's who mostly uses this account...

[the outdated lore]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...