• eurodyne@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    4 days ago

    I find the kind of absolutism found in the headline, extremely unhelpful, not to mention total horse shit.

    “Liberals” (and I’m not even getting into what people here defined as “liberals”) absolutely can confront capitalism in order to address environmental concerns, they just don’t like to and find it very difficult. But it is absolutely possible, and, with enough cajoling, absolutely will do so.

    This “us versus them” attitude, and this level of absolute defeatism only makes the job much more difficult for everyone. Instead, I suggest we all focus on how to get the job done rather than focusing on all of the barriers in our way.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      You don’t want to get into definitions because it makes your entire point moot. Liberals are capitalism. Its the driving force of liberalism. They go hand in hand. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions. This is an inescapable fact. The most core component of liberalism is private property, which is what capitalism is built on.

      Liberals will never abandon capitalism because they are capitalism.

      • ExFed@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        Y’all realize that the fossil fuel industry already isn’t a capitalistic entity, right?

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          If by what i want it to mean you mean what it has literally always meant for 300 years yeah sure.

          • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            4 days ago

            There’s a lot of daylight between “the exact thing a word means” and “the messy group of people who can currently be vaguely be defined that way”. Most ‘capitalists’ are just working class people who’ve been tricked or don’t do a lot of thinking. It’s wrong to conflate them with the rigorous meaning of a word that predates any living person.

              • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                4 days ago

                A couple things. The Americans who call themselves liberals didn’t vote for this, and the American liberals who did vote for it were aided and abetted by the most radicalised and financially empowered conservative oligarchs in literal human history. So if your only goal is to put as many people as possible into a toilet and flush it, great job. If not, you might have lost your way.

          • eurodyne@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yet, you still can’t seem to define it in any meaningful way. Just vague references to other subjective vagaries.

            Case in point

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 days ago

              Pretty sure my definition was extremely meaningful. Which is why you have gotten so huffy about it.

              • eurodyne@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                4 days ago

                Says the person who has to project their feelings onto others because they couldn’t defend their position. Or even explain it.

                And while I’m very happy for you that you take a great deal of meaning in those vague and subjective references in your previous comment, if you can’t even define them, how can you expect anyone else to take any meaning from it?

    • ExFed@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      It also doesn’t help that it seems to conveniently forget that the fossil fuel industry is an international cartel. It breaks capitalism by virtue that it can control its entire market and a great many markets (and governments) to which it’s connected.

      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        You do not understand capitalism very well if you think cartels are abberant.

        They do not break capitalism.

        They are capitalism.

        Either oligopolies or monopolies are the theoretical end point of basically any possible unregulated capitalist market structure given enough time, or enough corruption (‘subsidies’).

        If you think thats not correct, please do tell me how global financial markets work.

        I’m sure its just very close to that theoretical idea of perfect competition and a near infinite number of nearly equillvalent actors, right?

        And money itself, currency, definitely not like a cartel, I’m sure.

        Greatest trick the devil pulled on you was just telling you a childish fantasy was reality, and then you just kept on liking that idea, because it made for simple heroes and simple villains.