You can’t answer because you know it won’t. You aren’t ignorant. You know it isn’t even possible to end fossil fuel dependence in five years. Not without reducing the world to living like it’s the middle ages.
I see. “Socialism” will be able to replace all fossil fuel-powered vehicles: cars, trucks, planes, ships AND replace all of the world’s fossil fuel power plants in the world in five years. I guess by “socialism,” you mean “magic.”
Having supremacy over Capital allows you to work against market pressures.
I have no idea what you’re doing here, are you arguing for anarcho-primitivism, or are you using me as an outlet for your frustrations? Last time we spoke you were a Maoist, and now you’re an Anarcho-Primitivist less than a month later?
If you are just talking about coal-fired power plants and nothing else, you are talking about 2500 power plants.
Socialism cannot replace 2500 power plants in 5 years. It has nothing to do with supremacy over capital. It’s like saying socialism could have built the Great Pyramid in 5 years. No it couldn’t. You can’t magically speed up processes that take a set amount of time, require people with a certain skill level, etc.
I get that you think that somehow we will be in a socialist utopia in five years, but we won’t. And as the Earth heats up and the storms get worse and the wildfires choke the atmosphere, you will still be talking about the glorious revolution that will be happening any day now and save us all as the desperate climate refugees storm your home to take your food.
I’m not arguing for anything. You are. And what you are arguing for will not save humanity in the time frame that is needed. Because nothing will.
You don’t need to replace everything, you can replace as necessary and shut down everything else. It absolutely has to do with supremacy over Capital. However, you already gave yourself away:
I’m not arguing for anything
You’re just arguing as a personal outlet, that’s not healthy. I can’t tell if you’re a nihilist doomer, or just going through a rough time, but this isn’t healthy.
It is not necessary to replace all of them, we can downsize consumption. Consumerism is an aspect of Capitalism, we can downsize production and energy consumption off pure renewables, if at significant cost of quality of life.
Again, though, you clearly are looking for an outlet, you don’t care about logic but simply arguing to argue. I recommend you log out for a while, talk to someone IRL that cares about you. I’m saying this out of concern.
Probably not, but it will be able to prioritize things differently. Under socialism it doesn’t matter if it is profitable to build high-speed rail, or profitable to run it thereafter, the point isn’t to make money, the point is to transport people.
So we have time to switch to socialism and replace all fossil fuel transport with high speed rail in enough time to stop our civilization from collapsing due to climate change? Because I doubt it.
Maybe not. But we have to options: Socialism or Barbarism. Continuing with Capitalism is going to lead to a worse outcome, going with Socialism and working to halt climate change will result in a better outcome. Not a great one, not undoing everything in 5 years, but still a better outcome.
Then the answer is that it can, and that I can’t answer if it will or will not because I am not a fortune teller.
Are you doing alright?
You can’t answer because you know it won’t. You aren’t ignorant. You know it isn’t even possible to end fossil fuel dependence in five years. Not without reducing the world to living like it’s the middle ages.
It’s certainly doable, but it would require Socialism, and revolution within the West. Difficult, yes, but easier than returning to monkey.
I see. “Socialism” will be able to replace all fossil fuel-powered vehicles: cars, trucks, planes, ships AND replace all of the world’s fossil fuel power plants in the world in five years. I guess by “socialism,” you mean “magic.”
Having supremacy over Capital allows you to work against market pressures.
I have no idea what you’re doing here, are you arguing for anarcho-primitivism, or are you using me as an outlet for your frustrations? Last time we spoke you were a Maoist, and now you’re an Anarcho-Primitivist less than a month later?
If you are just talking about coal-fired power plants and nothing else, you are talking about 2500 power plants.
Socialism cannot replace 2500 power plants in 5 years. It has nothing to do with supremacy over capital. It’s like saying socialism could have built the Great Pyramid in 5 years. No it couldn’t. You can’t magically speed up processes that take a set amount of time, require people with a certain skill level, etc.
I get that you think that somehow we will be in a socialist utopia in five years, but we won’t. And as the Earth heats up and the storms get worse and the wildfires choke the atmosphere, you will still be talking about the glorious revolution that will be happening any day now and save us all as the desperate climate refugees storm your home to take your food.
I’m not arguing for anything. You are. And what you are arguing for will not save humanity in the time frame that is needed. Because nothing will.
You don’t need to replace everything, you can replace as necessary and shut down everything else. It absolutely has to do with supremacy over Capital. However, you already gave yourself away:
You’re just arguing as a personal outlet, that’s not healthy. I can’t tell if you’re a nihilist doomer, or just going through a rough time, but this isn’t healthy.
As necessary?
It’s necessary to replace all of them.
Are you some sort of climate change denier?
Also, this pop psychoanalysis of yours is tiresome, Dr. Freud.
It is not necessary to replace all of them, we can downsize consumption. Consumerism is an aspect of Capitalism, we can downsize production and energy consumption off pure renewables, if at significant cost of quality of life.
Again, though, you clearly are looking for an outlet, you don’t care about logic but simply arguing to argue. I recommend you log out for a while, talk to someone IRL that cares about you. I’m saying this out of concern.
Probably not, but it will be able to prioritize things differently. Under socialism it doesn’t matter if it is profitable to build high-speed rail, or profitable to run it thereafter, the point isn’t to make money, the point is to transport people.
So we have time to switch to socialism and replace all fossil fuel transport with high speed rail in enough time to stop our civilization from collapsing due to climate change? Because I doubt it.
Maybe not. But we have to options: Socialism or Barbarism. Continuing with Capitalism is going to lead to a worse outcome, going with Socialism and working to halt climate change will result in a better outcome. Not a great one, not undoing everything in 5 years, but still a better outcome.
The chances of socialism over barbarism are quite slim given the long history of humanity.
On the other hand, the other guy thinks that you can replace coal plants “as needed,” so at least you have a realistic outlook.