Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 48 15.8%
  • Marxism

    Votes: 26 8.6%
  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 12 4.0%
  • Left Communism

    Votes: 7 2.3%
  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 116 38.3%
  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 75 24.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 19 6.3%

  • Total voters
    303

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,646
Denver
Getting real tired of studies trying to show a tv media bias against the center by focusing on appearance statistics of members of congress by their DW-Nominate scores. Centrist politicians generally think the only good news is no news and hate having to take stances. Them not getting attention is what they want.

Critiques about tv news's centrist bias are almost always about the pundits and commentators, not the appearances of current members of congress.
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,249

Capitalist efficiency, creating jobs that don't need to exist (1 hr, 6 min mark)
My background before I became a teacher was in government housing administration (Section 8), and the amount of jobs at my PHA that were like this (dedicated to denying and/or limiting expenditures) was astounding. I was a caseworker, but if I had gone into rent reasonableness (determining "fair market rent" aka a fraction of the average rent in a given zip code) or market analysis, I could have doubled or tripled my pay overnight. To be a number cruncher in an ostensible nonprofit that is run like a for-profit business. Just insane.
 

3bdelilah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,267
What's the best way to react to socialism sceptics saying "it won't work because greed is human nature"? Obviously capitalism is the best example of said greed, because I can't define a fraction of the population owning the vast majority of wealth any other way, but most people are so indoctrinated by the current system that they wouldn't realise the greed even if it hit them in the heads. So what are other good replies?
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,423
Trying to sum up human nature in a word, any word, is popscience trash. And honing in on greed out of all the possible single words? Our ancestors never would have descended from the trees if that was true.
 

Kilrogg

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,989
Trying to sum up human nature in a word, any word, is popscience trash. And honing in on greed out of all the possible single words? Our ancestors never would have descended from the trees if that was true.
Agreed. If anything, saying that socialism can't work because of greed is an admission that capitalism is all about greed, which strikes me either as a self-own of pro-capitalists (why would you admit that your team is all about greed?) or as a deeply misanthrophic view of humanity. Possibly both. I mean, if these ideologies are on a spectrum, and capitalism is one or two steps removed from fascism, and fascism is a suicidal ideology, then... Yeah, makes sense.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,876
What's the best way to react to socialism sceptics saying "it won't work because greed is human nature"? Obviously capitalism is the best example of said greed, because I can't define a fraction of the population owning the vast majority of wealth any other way, but most people are so indoctrinated by the current system that they wouldn't realise the greed even if it hit them in the heads. So what are other good replies?
I wrote a long post that covered some of my thoughts on this a while back:

 

Aurizen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Philly
Hi Guys, I consider myself a socialist. But Not sure what flavor of socialist. Is there a way for you guys to help me find out? What would you say the difference between Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy? This is a path I've been exploring and people always shoot down this Philosophy because of Leninism and Maoism and some folks compare it to Cuba and their living situation and poverty. How can I dismantle that logic? Because what they mention as nix against Socialism was never true socialism.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,219
Hi Guys, I consider myself a socialist. But Not sure what flavor of socialist. Is there a way for you guys to help me find out? What would you say the difference between Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy? This is a path I've been exploring and people always shoot down this Philosophy because of Leninism and Maoism and some folks compare it to Cuba and their living situation and poverty. How can I dismantle that logic? Because what they mention as nix against Socialism was never true socialism.
Social Democracy is a liberal capitalist system, and as such, quite different from any of the flavors of socialism and communism.
I think Democratic Socialism is not a super well defined term that is used to describe a whole wide range of political positions, and as such , not terribly useful as a shorthand to explain to people what do you believe in.

I personally don't think it's terribly important to decide on on what ism best describe you, if it's anything left of the GOP people gonna accuse you of being Pol Pot anyway.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,876
Hi Guys, I consider myself a socialist. But Not sure what flavor of socialist. Is there a way for you guys to help me find out? What would you say the difference between Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy?
My general way of differentiating them is that while they both advocate working through electoral liberal democratic systems, socdems view the capitalist welfare state as the end goal while demsocs view it as a stepping stone towards worker control of the means if production. They're both reformists rather than revolutionaries, but socdems want reform within capitalism while demsocs want to reform their way out of capitalism.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,043
Hi Guys, I consider myself a socialist. But Not sure what flavor of socialist. Is there a way for you guys to help me find out? What would you say the difference between Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy? This is a path I've been exploring and people always shoot down this Philosophy because of Leninism and Maoism and some folks compare it to Cuba and their living situation and poverty. How can I dismantle that logic? Because what they mention as nix against Socialism was never true socialism.
Well, the very first thing is that Socialism isn't necessarily about the welfare state. It's pretty much in favor of promoting a welfare state 100% of the time, but that's as a consequence of the belief in human rights and a desire to shape history as much as study it. Central to socialism is the idea that owners should own the means of production-- that, in effect, nobody should be accumulating wealth for doing nothing (but that, in contradistinction, nobody should have to work to earn the necessities of life like food and shelter. Those should just be a given). This is fundamental to the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy. Democratic socialism is fundamentally about seizing the means. Social democracy abandons that ideal while retaining a welfare state. In our eyes, the primary problem with social democracy is the issue of regulatory capture. If you leave the rich to their own devices and don't dismantle or challenge their power structures, they're just going to lobby away the welfare you make because it's a threat to their power.

Socialism comes in two fundamental flavors, really-- reformist and revolutionary. We can talk about the difference between anarchism and socialism but honestly it's mostly a spectrum until you hit purely individualist anarchists who have their own stuff going on (even though anarchists of both the red and black persuasion have a ride together/die together sort of deal). The first thing to realize is what you've already realized-- there are many socialisms. You don't have to deal with the ideas of Mao and of Lenin if you don't want to. Lenin, in particular, has a difficult claim to even being a regular Marxist socialist. He relied hard on vanguardism and his creation of the Cheka puts him in line with people like Blanqui, who predate Marx. As far back as the time of Rosa Luxemburg, people were pointing that out. Mao's got a similar deal going on, but he plays even faster and looser with the rules than Lenin did. See, Marx says you have to have a primarily industrial society before you can institute revolution. Neither of those two lads did that. Russia was primarily agrarian even though Lenin had his power base in the industrial working class. Mao, on the other hand, had to utilize the peasantry to run his revolution.

So neither of them is really using Marxist ideals. And there are many more socialisms than Marx. I prefer the work of Murray Bookchin, for example-- and it's important to note that not all revolutionary socialism immediately descends into authoritarianism. The confusingly-named libertarian socialism is an umbrella that contains not just democratic socialism, but the other socialisms that believe strongly in personal liberty. This is what a lot of anarchism is actually about.
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,249
What's the best way to react to socialism sceptics saying "it won't work because greed is human nature"? Obviously capitalism is the best example of said greed, because I can't define a fraction of the population owning the vast majority of wealth any other way, but most people are so indoctrinated by the current system that they wouldn't realise the greed even if it hit them in the heads. So what are other good replies?
My response is usually to ask why feudalism or the divine right of kings isn't human nature. How is the accumulation of capital based on worker exploitation and rent-seeking a fundamentally human trait? It's important to remember that socialism isn't utopian: there will still be greed, dishonesty, etc. but one specific set of behaviors, the capitalist ones, will be disposed of.
 

Aurizen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Philly
Social Democracy is a liberal capitalist system, and as such, quite different from any of the flavors of socialism and communism.
I think Democratic Socialism is not a super well defined term that is used to describe a whole wide range of political positions, and as such , not terribly useful as a shorthand to explain to people what do you believe in.

I personally don't think it's terribly important to decide on on what ism best describe you, if it's anything left of the GOP people gonna accuse you of being Pol Pot anyway.
Even with so-called Liberals or democrats they don't jive with Socialism of any form...

My general way of differentiating them is that while they both advocate working through electoral liberal democratic systems, socdems view the capitalist welfare state as the end goal while demsocs view it as a stepping stone towards worker control of the means of production. They're both reformists rather than revolutionaries, but socdems want reform within capitalism while demsocs want to reform their way out of capitalism.
Thats a very interesting perspective!! I like that idea. People would be against worker control because they aren't investors How would we get them to see the benifit of worker control the means of production?

Well, the very first thing is that Socialism isn't necessarily about the welfare state. It's pretty much in favor of promoting a welfare state 100% of the time, but that's as a consequence of the belief in human rights and a desire to shape history as much as study it. Central to socialism is the idea that owners should own the means of production-- that, in effect, nobody should be accumulating wealth for doing nothing (but that, in contradistinction, nobody should have to work to earn the necessities of life like food and shelter. Those should just be a given). This is fundamental to the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy. Democratic socialism is fundamentally about seizing the means. Social democracy abandons that ideal while retaining a welfare state. In our eyes, the primary problem with social democracy is the issue of regulatory capture. If you leave the rich to their own devices and don't dismantle or challenge their power structures, they're just going to lobby away the welfare you make because it's a threat to their power.

Socialism comes in two fundamental flavors, really-- reformist and revolutionary. We can talk about the difference between anarchism and socialism but honestly it's mostly a spectrum until you hit purely individualist anarchists who have their own stuff going on (even though anarchists of both the red and black persuasion have a ride together/die together sort of deal). The first thing to realize is what you've already realized-- there are many socialisms. You don't have to deal with the ideas of Mao and of Lenin if you don't want to. Lenin, in particular, has a difficult claim to even being a regular Marxist socialist. He relied hard on vanguardism and his creation of the Cheka puts him in line with people like Blanqui, who predate Marx. As far back as the time of Rosa Luxemburg, people were pointing that out. Mao's got a similar deal going on, but he plays even faster and looser with the rules than Lenin did. See, Marx says you have to have a primarily industrial society before you can institute revolution. Neither of those two lads did that. Russia was primarily agrarian even though Lenin had his power base in the industrial working class. Mao, on the other hand, had to utilize the peasantry to run his revolution.

So neither of them is really using Marxist ideals. And there are many more socialisms than Marx. I prefer the work of Murray Bookchin, for example-- and it's important to note that not all revolutionary socialism immediately descends into authoritarianism. The confusingly-named libertarian socialism is an umbrella that contains not just democratic socialism, but the other socialisms that believe strongly in personal liberty. This is what a lot of anarchism is actually about.
Your answer is phenomenal! Thank you so much! I think I'm a democratic socialist now. as for Reformist and Revolutionary, I guess a little of both. I support revolutionaries from Huey Newton to Fred Hampton, and Angela Davis. When I bring up anything worker control they talk about the Orwelian subject of the bad Socialism has.

My response is usually to ask why feudalism or the divine right of kings isn't human nature. How is the accumulation of capital based on worker exploitation and rent-seeking a fundamentally human trait? It's important to remember that socialism isn't utopian: there will still be greed, dishonesty, etc. but one specific set of behaviors, the capitalist ones, will be disposed of.
So to play devil's advocate, new evils will arise from a socialist economy possibly authoritarianism?
 
Last edited:

Ogodei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,746
Coruscant
So my wife had surgery today but we had already hit our deductible, which is the only time that's ever happened, and it feels bizarre to know that we won't have to pay anything for the surgery.

Must be nice to never even think about that. Savor it while it lasts, Britain!
If you get an HMO in the US you can get the NHS-esque experience. Zero out-of-network coverage that isn't the ER, so you have no "choice," but they keep premiums low and there's no deductible or coinsurance, only reasonable copays (quite reasonable in my case. I pay for in-person doctor's visits pretty much only. If it's just a phone consultation with my MD, it's free, and any tests he orders are also free, including now three MRIs I've had).

___________________________________________

My question coming here is the issue of democratic failure in a socialist model, in light of the recent elections in the UK or questions of "welfare for whites."

I guess the idea is that any political identity outside of class is manufactured by the ruling classes, and so if a properly socialist society is achieved you won't have the issue of people having "bad" self interests?

I now understand Marx-Leninism a little better, if you have the idea that there needs to be a period of "readying" the people for socialism, but we see how that ended up...

The only humane alternative seems to be electoral incrementalism, because through the incremental changes you can acclimate the people to socialism and guide their self-interest peacefully, but it's a long path fraught with steps forwards and back.
 

Snowy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
1,142
If you get an HMO in the US you can get the NHS-esque experience. Zero out-of-network coverage that isn't the ER, so you have no "choice," but they keep premiums low and there's no deductible or coinsurance, only reasonable copays (quite reasonable in my case. I pay for in-person doctor's visits pretty much only. If it's just a phone consultation with my MD, it's free, and any tests he orders are also free, including now three MRIs I've had).

___________________________________________

My question coming here is the issue of democratic failure in a socialist model, in light of the recent elections in the UK or questions of "welfare for whites."

I guess the idea is that any political identity outside of class is manufactured by the ruling classes, and so if a properly socialist society is achieved you won't have the issue of people having "bad" self interests?

I now understand Marx-Leninism a little better, if you have the idea that there needs to be a period of "readying" the people for socialism, but we see how that ended up...

The only humane alternative seems to be electoral incrementalism, because through the incremental changes you can acclimate the people to socialism and guide their self-interest peacefully, but it's a long path fraught with steps forwards and back.
The problem there, of course, is incrementalism can be beaten back far more easily, such that we’re having to claw and scrape to achieve material gains on par with the New Deal, let alone anything beyond.
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,249
So to play devil's advocate, new evils will arise from a socialist economy possibly authoritarianism?
There will always be authoritarians, just like there will always be jerks and assholes, but without a state and a bourgeoisie their ability to consolidate power and resources will be much, much less. Here's where vanguardists would say a class-conscious population of workers would prevent class stratification, whereas anarcho-syndicalists say the unions would prevent it. Non-hierarchical anarchists argue that non-specialized action taking place more or less spontaneously without defined leadership would be key to preventing it.
 

3bdelilah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,267
Comrades, I indulged myself in a Reddit argument to test myself, and I was wondering what you think. How did I do? There are areas I think I can improve myself (especially regarding post-socialism e.g. stateless communism and its implementation), but also areas I think I did pretty well.

By all means, I'd love to hear some feedback.


Like you points, I just want to further kick the idea of communism.
The idea if a classless and stateless society is, in my opinion, impossible.
Which is why communism isn't something that happens overnight, as opposed to the misconception that many people apparently have. It's a slow process that none of us will be alive to witness, and most likely not in the live times of our (Gen Y/Z) grandchildren. It's a process that, through a rather lengthy transitioning phase called socialism, will eventually take place, or the human race as we know it will radically cease to exist.
But I'd like to reply to your points individually.

The idea if a classless and stateless society is, in my opinion, impossible.
It's not impossible. It's been done hundreds of thousands of years before recorded history, and humans will continue to do so if or when society falls. We haven't always been bowing to kings, voting for presidents, or choosing representatives in parliament. By implying it's impossible, you do a massive disservice to those who came before. And ironically, just as those people in the far past would likely be unable to imagine the way we live now, so are most of us now (conditioned by the system) unable to imagine a way of life that actually doesn't involve wealth hoarding, oppression, and making profits, but instead working together and sharing in the abundance that Earth has to offer.
For one, a class is formed from a economical, political, cultural, or even racial difference that has a group of people in power over another. Humans just like to have something to say "I'm better than that" and while you can say there wont be a racial class further down the line, or economic class due to the communism, you still have political and social. Anyone with a vastly different ideology to the group will generally be seen has weird, or even as an enemy. This can lead people to being ostracised or simply not being given equal treatment to someone who is in the group in power.
No, people don't like saying "I'm better than that". There's nothing in our nature that does this. In fact, for the longest of time we worked together as a species. What is correct, however, and what you're completely right about, is that everyone has their own talents. Your talents aren't mine, and vice versa. Just like some people back then were talented hunters, and some people were talented gatherers, preparing food, and what have you. But both of us working together would be much more efficient than you half-assing my talent, and me half-assing yours. It's a fundamental aspect of communalism and communism where together (after all, communis is latin for universal) we work to share in the world's material wealth.

Furthermore, people saying "I'm better than that" and somehow view themselves as superior only happens where there's a significant power dynamic in place, which usually is imposed upon "lower" working class people by the bourgeoisie. If anything, capitalism is what has immensely accelerated this crooked power dynamic, which in turn gives those in power even more power, and it turns in a vicious circle, until there's either no one to oppress any more, or the masses revolt. That's where we're heading now, and it's a realistic scenario with the constantly growing income and wealth inequality. People can only bend down and spread their cheeks for so long.
As for stateless, it's a matter of organization, when you get a large enough group (which always grows, just due to incorporating other people and simply due to reproduction) you start to have not only issues with the spread of resources, but minor disputes and arguements about social taboos to the point that people will typically demand some sort of order for people to abide by. These generally have rules against murder, theft, rape, and assault.
You seem to underestimate how huge the earth is. While you're correct that large groups aren't easily organized without a state, in these cases many socialists opt for the usage of worker councils or other types of (smaller) direct democracy-based unions. But again, you're thinking of proper communism, which is like I said earlier at least a century or two away from now, if not longer. However, in the meanwhile, the transition to socialism and the way to implement that is something that socialists among themselves aren't always seeing eye to eye with. For this transition phase, I see a role for a decentralized state where the state itself provides the people with the essentials like housing, healthcare, and sustenance, but everything else happens on a federal, more local level. Again, that's my personal take.
You also have the issue of, well, there beings other states that have organized resources and this will typically include military resources to defend the said resources and particularly power hungry states may want the resources of a defenseless group of people with resources. You know, capitalistic or imperialistic states, which aren't necessarily the same, but one can be warped by the other.
Which is why many socialists believe that in order to transition properly to socialism (with communism as end goal), the proletarian revolution has to be worldwide. It almost looked like the tide was turning in (western) Europe in the early 20th century, but in the end only Russia managed to actually attempt starting the transition. European capitalist countries learned from their mistakes and quickly implemented some policies that would never have passed without socialists (like welfare, reduction of work hours, reduction of workdays, healthcare, etc.), with the sole reason of hushing the population.

Anyway, afterwards, we've seen multiple times that socialist countries surrounded by capitalism cannot exist properly, because they're hit by capitalist powers (mostly in the form of the US) with sanctions, or even with supporting right-wing, authoritarian regimes that coincidentally always favor the US and fall in line with their economic policies. Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Soviet Union, PRC, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. all have endured this. Some more than others, and they all deal with it their own way. Some good solutions, some terrible ones. But without digressing too much: the socialist revolution has to be worldwide, or at least vast areas at a time, for it to be successful.
 

Eylos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,658
just watched parasite, i recommend good movie, another name this movie could receive is "capitalism"
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,766
Comrades, I indulged myself in a Reddit argument to test myself, and I was wondering what you think. How did I do? There are areas I think I can improve myself (especially regarding post-socialism e.g. stateless communism and its implementation), but also areas I think I did pretty well.

By all means, I'd love to hear some feedback.
Those are pretty much all the points I bring up when explaining what Communism is and isn't.

So, cool.
 

Aurizen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Philly
In a democratic socialite society is there merit in investing in the stock market? Or any merit for a self identifying socialist investing in the stock market?
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,766
In a democratic socialite society is there merit in investing in the stock market? Or any merit for a self identifying socialist investing in the stock market?
I feel that the stock market is essentially a tool for value extraction from labour and speculation. Very much a tool for the bourgeois.

That said, most of my superannuation is wrapped up in the stock market. Hypocritical? Probably. But that's the thing you currently have to do in Australia if you want to retire at a reasonable age.
 

Eylos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,658
In a democratic socialite society is there merit in investing in the stock market? Or any merit for a self identifying socialist investing in the stock market?
do what you want to win money, engels was a bourgeois during industrial revolution exploited the working class (i know his father managed etc), but he helped a lot marx and the movement with his money for example.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,043
Yeah, at least here on ERA we're not big on trying to remain pure for Marx-senpai. The enemy's the capitalist broadly and the billionaire specifically. If you're not them, don't worry about it.
 

Televator

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,052
Oh oh; I better run!


(I know you mean capitalist class) :P
I don’t speak for Deff, but that would seem to make his statement redundant. I would agree with “capitalist broadly” as it reads, while also knowing that not all “enemies” require the same severity of confrontation.

Hell, I’ll include the internalized capitalist indoctrination in oneself.
 

Aurizen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Philly
I feel that the stock market is essentially a tool for value extraction from labour and speculation. Very much a tool for the bourgeois.

That said, most of my superannuation is wrapped up in the stock market. Hypocritical? Probably. But that's the thing you currently have to do in Australia if you want to retire at a reasonable age.
That is true. Thats a conflict I have with investing but at the same time being a socialist.

do what you want to win money, engels was a bourgeois during industrial revolution exploited the working class (i know his father managed etc), but he helped a lot marx and the movement with his money for example.
True. But I'm just a working class investing. I'm not sure how someone who invest in the stock market could tryly call themselves a socialist... or should they?

We are playing the game based on the rules that are currently set. That does not mean we cannot agitate and work towards changing those rules.
I like that thought! Its true. But what if we become a Democratic Socialist society. What then?
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,971
Scotland
You can't opt out of capitalism and I wouldn't chastise anybody calling themselves a socialist for seeking to make their families lives better in the current system.

I worked with a stockbrokers and private banking so I've dabbled in the market, I don't see it as somehow making me not a socialist.

My rule of thumb is you gotta eat so do what you need to, so you can secure your families future, just try your best to not do it in a really, really shitty way. Like investing in arms manufacturers or something.
 

benhuber

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11
PA
I mean, since we're talking about ethically making work under capitalism. Hi, new face here. Been socialist and left-leaning for a while but it really catalyzed for me in 2016.

It seems I may been inheriting a small business in the future (5-10 years time). The thing is: it's apartment rentals. So if I inherited it, I'd end up, you know, a landlord. Granted if I did it I'm fairly certain I'd be more ethical than most but obviously the system is structured in such a way that even if you're the most generous landlord you're still a landlord. I realize this is a pretty huge question but I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's better to be a "good" landlord that will at least be a decent option for people, better not to get involved at all and try to make a living some other way, or if there's some third option I'm not fully considering, like turning things into a rent-to-own operation.

I'd like to be able to provide for my family and obviously getting the keys to a pre-existing business is a very privileged thing to have happen to yourself, so I'm well aware that this is a bougie question I'm considering already. My wife and I both have serious medical conditions that require expensive care, so the idea of consistent income is quite appealing. But I'd also like to not betray myself and beliefs over time.
 

Aurizen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Philly
You can't opt out of capitalism and I wouldn't chastise anybody calling themselves a socialist for seeking to make their families lives better in the current system.

I worked with a stockbrokers and private banking so I've dabbled in the market, I don't see it as somehow making me not a socialist.

My rule of thumb is you gotta eat so do what you need to, so you can secure your families future, just try your best to not do it in a really, really shitty way. Like investing in arms manufacturers or something.
I like that answer. What would you say to someone who bashes someone for even investing ethically? Like for instance tech companies like Apple? And the issue with their alleged child labors and cheap labor? It appears no form of investing has been clean.
 

Mekanos

Member
Oct 17, 2018
15,620
If any decades going to be it

This one

Fall of America I feel it
I feel like we'll stave it off until at least the 2030s when the climate refugee crisis will get really out of control. That's when "climate refugee" will enter the common parlance and we will see people just abandoning these countries in droves when the water runs out and the land is unusable for farming.

Those pictures of Australia on fire are horrifying. Literally looks straight out of Blade Runner 2049. Now imagine the global south constantly dealing with that.

...yeah, I don't have much optimism for the future.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,996
I feel like we'll stave it off until at least the 2030s when the climate refugee crisis will get really out of control. That's when "climate refugee" will enter the common parlance and we will see people just abandoning these countries in droves when the water runs out and the land is unusable for farming.

Those pictures of Australia on fire are horrifying. Literally looks straight out of Blade Runner 2049. Now imagine the global south constantly dealing with that.

...yeah, I don't have much optimism for the future.
At that point all of the world will fall, not just America.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,043
In all reality America will be relatively safe from climate change.

It's Sub Saharan Africa, Australia and the Middle East that are gonna get fucked fast.
That's predicated on the oceanic currents of the Atlantic staying stable. Which, let's be clear, they might not. And if they *don't* stay stable, Europe becomes a steppe and the US is some exotic and unpredictable kind of fucked too, given just how much of it is bound up in wetland ecosystems.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,996
That's predicated on the oceanic currents of the Atlantic staying stable. Which, let's be clear, they might not. And if they *don't* stay stable, Europe becomes a steppe and the US is some exotic and unpredictable kind of fucked too, given just how much of it is bound up in wetland ecosystems.
What is a steppe biome like?
 

3bdelilah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,267
If any decades going to be it

This one

Fall of America I feel it
Yeah, this'll be the decade that either the US heavily reforms, or the masses revolt. Which hopefully opens up path to socialism, though I wouldn't hold my breath. But fact of the matter is that the insane rate at which wealth inequality has risen the last decade(s) will only get worse the coming years.