208
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
208 points (99.5% liked)
chapotraphouse
13965 readers
734 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Not true at all. Most of the current greatest exporters of capitalist ideology will either implode (e.g. Taiwan) or be set on a serious back foot (e.g. Japan), but the Axis of Resistance is not Comintern, and after China some of the most powerful countries in the world will be Russia and Iran, which are decidedly not socialist, and most countries in the world will not be socialist. China's victory over America will be helpful because China has a posture of helping imperialized nations develop advanced capitalism, which is helpful to them directly and to the development of socialism, but it's only a fraction of the overall battle.
It's all plusses and minuses right. I just think that the US not exporting it's death cult ideology is such a huge step forward that it greatly outweighs its hindrance to reactionary countries like Iran and Russia. Iran I think has progressive potential. Because it has an identity that can't be easily flattened by capitalist or religious ideology. Russia is definitely a more unfortunate situation. Unfortunate because it's current setup is a reaction to decades of pressure and conflict with the capitalist west. It's hard to see Russia taking a progressive tilt in the future.
I'll edit this in but when I say communist leaning it's a general way to refer to countries like Vietnam, Cuba, even north Korea that are functional and progressive. Both are important because when the global capitalist machine stops working countries will need to adapt quickly and reactionary countries simply do no have the ability to do this. They will resort to their usual victim blaming of immigrants, LGBTQ etc but that won't change their material situation. some countries might resort to nazbol type ideology and that could work but I don't think it will work that well because right ideology always siphons resources to the top and that will destabilize these countries
I don't think this makes sense. Other than the puppets, who I agree will implode, the countries most negatively affected by this issue are ones that are underdeveloped and over-reliant on a narrow range of exports produced in large quantity (because imperialism deformed their economies). These countries will have trouble without as many buyers but, especially in the context of no longer being owned by so many international corporations (though those might just get bought out by Europe), they are still very under-developed, and therefore socialist construction is extremely difficult. It seems much more logical to assume that the vast majority of these will simply embrace nationalist capitalism, a movement that is much stronger in basically all of these countries than their respective socialist parties. It's not like they aren't out of buyers, especially with China making such an effort to inflate consumption, but communistly.
You need to stop relying on your intuition here, because your intuition is giving you very poor conclusions. Look at the world, look at it as it is now and as it has been for the past few centuries, and tell me that this statement makes any sense. Instability is inherent to capitalism, but that doesn't make capitalism weak and it doesn't mean that capitalism can't endure for centuries. If "siphoning resources to the top" was enough to make a state non-viable, we would have been in agrarian communist societies for the last 5,000 years instead of developing successive modes of production that only increase and increase stratification, with each of those modes lasting centuries if not millennia.
Climate change is going to be unprecedented and how things used to work can't really predict what is going to happen and it's speculative. But I think this is what's going to happen based on my scientific educational background. My economic, sociological knowledge is limited and I could be missing things there. But basically the most important thing is supply chains will fall apart. Countries overly dependent on imported food like uk will fall apart or return to piracy. It's going to be a shit show but countries like China that can isolate and due to their large geography have resources, can maintain a level of civilization. Smaller counties simply can't embrace capitalism because they'll either be farming or cooked because trade is going to decline massively. I mean large parts of the planet (for example India and Pakistan) will simply be uninhabitable. It's not a question of who turns to capitalism or communism. It's who is already there and which is a more effective system to deal with climate change.
No, it's still a question of who turns to capitalism or communism, because the systems in place don't exist on the basis of informed consent on the part of the whole population or an even more nebulous mechanism that decides what is "effective," it is based on the degree to which the proletariat is organized as a coherent political force and the extent to which the country is developed such that it can actually support socialism. Neither of those things are the case almost anywhere in the world that isn't already calling itself socialist (and even in some places that are). Your framework, however you intend it, is essentially a depoliticization of the mode of production, which is simply ahistorical.
You've shifted from pure geopolitical wishcasting to environmental collapse posadism.
Disagree. The lack of resources means economic de-development. Calling your economic system either capitalist or communist at that point is arbitrary (yes technically they could be categorized but it is of no practical use). The only exception I see are nations like China and Russia that have vast resources that can also defend themselves. And even they will face a decline as they adapt
First this is just a truism. Secon, What's your point because next you say
Is it that countries won't go socialist? I mean I don't think socialism is going to thrive in the capitalist carcasses of most counties once capitalism fails. It could, you never know but I don't get your point. You aren't making your conclusion clear at all. Like I dunno maybe give your opinion on how things will play out.
Do you know what wish casting means? Why would anyone want things to play out like this?
And I have no idea what you mean by environmental collapse posadism. I'm sorry to address each point individually but I can't find your overall argument so here we are