@Protestation hey so what is with all the absolute goofballs in the comments trying to “yeah but” this objectively true graphic
Deforestation and the destruction of environments have happened long before capitalism. One could say that the worst parts of human behavior are encapsulated by capitalism, maybe even enhanced by.
To a degree, sure, but the reason why it accelerated and why we can’t stop climate change and other massive problems is that we live under global capitalism. If we had administrations serving common people we’d be able to demand a stop to this and our countries would obey. They can’t do that under the dictatorship of capital.
Nothing says “intelligent, rational, empathic human beings” quite like anarchy
FFS look up the history of Easter Island. This is a uniquely human trait either. TREES caused mass extinction too. Species running amok is a problem.
capitalism and humanity are a combined problem towards our planet
The lichen of destruction
The planet literally doesn’t care about us in any way. We could nuke every inch of the planet continuously for a decade and the planet will continue to spin and eventually become a lush planet full of life again.
Don’t worry about the planet, we are incapable of destroying it in any meaningful way.
oh, yeah, fuck it all. fuck the climate anyway, I guess?
Removed by mod
It isnt obviously the problem until we see a solution working out… We can say it looks like its probably the problem.
The PRC is using its socialist economy to dramatically combat climate change and improve green energy.
@Cowbee [he/they] tbf the PRC itself admits that its economy is a market economy and not (yet) socialist, but other socialist countries like the DPRK and Cuba are also pushing hard for green energy. We have lots of evidence of the solution to capitalism and its ecological issues.
This is incorrect, regarding how the PRC presents its economy. They specifically recognize it as a socialist market economy, and they do so on the grounds that public ownership is the principal aspect. They certainly do make use of markets, but markets are not capitalism. The centenary goals of the CPC are not to become socialist, but to reach certain levels of socialist development. Here’s a diagram from Cheng Enfu, a prominent economist in China:
I do agree that Cuba and the DPRK are pushing forward for green initiatives, but recognition must be given to the PRC for their efforts. They have been providing Cuba with solar panels and electrification, and combatting desertification domestically. Beijing’s air quality today vs. 20 years ago is lightyears apart, and their adoption of EVs has helped reduce noise pollution as well.
@Cowbee [he/they] Their officials acknowledge that they don’t have a socialist economy yet. Regardless of what westerners want to think with their black and white ideas, the CPC itself recognizes that they are not presently socialist. You can see this in interviews. Capitalism is not markets, but it is private ownership of the MoP, which is what 70% of China’s economy is built on. We can acknowledge their progress while also acknowledging that this is not presently socialism.
I’d like a source on CPC officials saying they don’t have a socialist economy yet. Their officials call it a socialist market economy, because that’s what best describes it. Here’s Xi Jinping, in 2013:
First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine.
…
In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. This includes building a socialist market economy; socialist democratic politics; advanced socialist culture; socialist civil harmony and ecology; all-around human development; the gradual realization of common prosperity for all people; a rich, strong, democratic and harmonious socialist modern state under the leadership of the CPC with economic construction as the center; adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles; insisting on Reform and Opening Up; and the liberation and development of the productive forces. It includes adhering to the system of People’s Congresses; the system of multi-party cooperation under the leadership of the CPC; the systems of national autonomy at the regional level and mass autonomy at the grassroots level; the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics; and the basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and a variety of auxiliary ownership systems develop alongside. These goals embody the basic principles of scientific socialism under our current historical conditions. Adherence to the socialist road demands that we fulfill them.
Capitalism is indeed not markets, but it is also not determined by simple ratio of private property to public, nor is a system with X% private and Y% public X% capitalist and Y% socialist. Dialectics rejects these frames of analysis as metaphysics. What matters is what is principle, what is rising and dominating the economy. In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned.
The private sector in China is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest small and medium firms. Despite making up a sizable portion of GDP, these do not control the economy, nor direct its trajectory. The basis of communist production is in large industry, not just collectivizing even the small firms before markets have centralized them. This does not mean it is necessary for private property to exist to develop socialized production, the DPRK is a good example of this (though they have special economic zones like Rason). However, it does mean that by maintaining public ownership of the large firms and key industries, socialism can be maintained. China’s socialism is the socialism suited for China.
The problem with looking at simple ratio, is that this makes no analysis of how power is distributed, what tendencies are rising and which are dying away. This views production and distribution not as something that changes in identity as time moves forward, but instead as a substance in flux. In this way, it is metaphysical. When accurately contextualizing the relationship between public and private in China, it is the public sector that holds all of the power, that absorbs the private over time as the private grows and develops. Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
Harkening back to Cheng Enfu’s diagram, they are in the developing and intermediate stages of socialism. They are not advanced in socialism, and likely will not be for a while. Their progress is thanks to socialism, however, built by Mao Zedong and the CPC, carried to today and interated upon as new conditions arise and new contradictions form.
@Cowbee [he/they] I can’t find the official interview (thought I’d saved it) but here is a good synopsis: #[1](https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/08/25/china-model-zhang-weiwei-interview/)
Second, economically, we call it a socialist market economy.
In fact, it is a kind of mixed economy. But many countries also have a mixed economy. But the Chinese one is unique.
It means the state owns so many resources, from minerals to land, everything. Yet, the right to use the land is flexible. It’s very often shaped by market forces.
A good example of why China can be so successful in internet applications, even for those apps used in the United States, such as TikTok, Temu, or Shein.
They are Chinese inventions, because it came from internal competition within China. And after this, they become very competitive internationally.
What’s being described here is really no different from any mixed economy that funds certain public services (so, basically every mixed economy in the first world). Only Americans look at the way China functions and think it’s socialist, for the same reason so many Americans think universal healthcare is a form of socialism.
Dialectics, materialist dialectics, very specifically is not about principle. It’s about material conditions, not ideals. “We have a mixed economy, but we have the people in mind” doesn’t make something socialist from a dialectical perspective, but quite the opposite. “At the same time, the private sector, like Alibaba Group, made the best use of this availability of top-notch infrastructure, to provide internet services and e-commerce to the best of their capability” on the other hand, very much makes the economy not socialist. This isn’t an argument that can be had. You can’t judge the way an economy functions based on vibes; it either is, or it isn’t, and China’s top scholars and officials are well aware that it isn’t. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” means “socialism in the future, theoretically”.
What you describe is how the socialist market economy is. All economies are mixed, really, even the DPRK with its Special Economic Zones. Public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, while market forces govern secondary and smaller industries. This is what it means to be the principal aspect.
A note on principal aspects: I do not mean principles as in ideals or morals, but the essence of a contradiction. From Mao’s On Contradiction:
As we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, in any given contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, not private ownership. I very well understand that materialism rejects idealism, and that material conditions matter above all. That’s why I identified your use of simple ratio in identifying socialism as metaphysics, the 50/50 split is entirely arbitrary and says nothing of which aspect has dominance. The fact that the large and key industries are public means that the private sector is thoroughly under the control of the public sector.
A common example is the rubber factory and the rubber ball factory, the rubber factory has total control over how the rubber ball factory can function even if the rubber ball factory makes more profits or whatnot (a problem with focusing on GDP). China does this with all of its key industries and large firms, while allowing diverse forms of ownership (including private) to fill in the gaps left by the state owned and run industry, and in turn become folded into the public sector.
Returning to my quote from Xi Jinping:
In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress.
The CPC fully believes (correctly) that SWCC is socialism now. What SWCC is not is static. The current market distribution is not a fixed, permanent position, but something that unfolds dialectically. As public ownership is principal, and is rising, the private sector gradually grows, socializes as markets do, and is folded into the public sector. This is the path of dialectical development, from lower to higher, from quantity to quality. It has nothing to do with vibes, but instead the recognition that the character of an economy is not determined by ratio, nor by the “one-drop” rule, but by the principal aspect of the economy.
In other words, by that which is dominant in the economy via controlling the large firms and key industries, and that which is rising. SWCC is socialism now, as it develops and grows from less developed to more. Again, see Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
This is entirely different from Nordic style social democracy, which, while having sizable safety nets, has private ownership as principal, dominating the large firms and key industries, as well as the state. Some social democracies even have higher public ownership ratios as a portion of GDP than the PRC, and yet their results materially are dramatically different. This is proof that it isn’t just an arbitrary, vibes-based ratio, but correct identification of that which is rising and dominant in an economy that determines its character, as dialectical materialism teaches us.
Comrade, with all due respect, I suggest you pay more attention to what our comrades in China are actually saying about their socialist system that being that they consider the socialist market economy to be the primary stage of socialism. I also implore you to not make the assumption that I don’t know about the materialist aspect of dialectical materialism, it’s insulting. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I did write a short overview of dialectical materialism you can check out if you feel the need to vet my “diamat cred.”
All economies are mixed, really, even the DPRK with its Special Economic Zones.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what special economic zones are in the DPRK. They are not as they are in the PRC, where they are capitalist safehavens. In the DPRK, these are zones for international trade. All industry is still publicly owned.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, not private ownership.
This just isn’t true, though. The public sector in China is the same as the public sector in most mixed economies: Transportation, parts of agriculture, some electrical and telecomms, etc. It is no different. In fact, China has a larger private sector compared to its public sector than some of these western countries. China’s healthcare system is more privatized than most of these western countries. Your analogy with the rubber vs the ball just doesn’t apply here; China’s primary industries are all privately owned except for certain areas in agriculture. I do very much pay attention to this, because I am waiting with bated breath for it to change.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what special economic zones are in the DPRK. They are not as they are in the PRC, where they are capitalist safehavens. In the DPRK, these are zones for international trade. All industry is still publicly owned.
The DPRK does have limited private property in its Special Economic Zones. See A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. Foreign investment and ownership happens there too, such as from the Emperor Group owning a casino and whatnot, a group based in Hong Kong.
This just isn’t true, though. The public sector in China is the same as the public sector in most mixed economies: Transportation, parts of agriculture, some electrical and telecomms, etc. It is no different. In fact, China has a larger private sector compared to its public sector than some of these western countries. China’s healthcare system is more privatized than most of these western countries. Your analogy with the rubber vs the ball just doesn’t apply here; China’s primary industries are all privately owned except for certain areas in agriculture. I do very much pay attention to this, because I am waiting with bated breath for it to change.
Good news, public ownership does control the large firms and key industries in China:
Your point that some western counteies have higher ratios is exactly why we need to identify the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and not compare simple ratio. Otherwise, western economies would have far more similar results than the dramatically different results they do. The private sector in China is relegated to small and medium secondary firms, and is about half sole-proprietorships and cooperatives. On wikipedia, there is a very good point:
State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China’s market capitalization in 2019[4] and estimates suggest that they generated about 23-28% of China’s GDP in 2017 and employ between 5% and 16% of the workforce.[5] Ninety-one (91) of these SOEs belong to the 2020 Fortune Global 500 companies.[6] Almost 867,000 enterprises have a degree of state ownership, according to Franklin Allen of Imperial College London.[7]
In other words, although the number of people employed is smaller than the private sector, and the GDP is lower, state owned enterprises still dominate the economy because they are the largest and most important. This is only looking at SOEs, too, not the rest of the public sector.
That’s why I suggest that you listen more to our comrades from China, rather than assume that every socialist model has to look exactly like the USSR. China’s conditions are different, and their socialist system is working well and continuing to develop to higher stages of socialist development.
In mathematics we use the term “obviously” all the time without empirical evidence. Sometimes because logically it is, sometimes because we want to do a proof by intimidation.
Removed by mod
is that how you justify to yourself your side ruling the world with an iron fist?
I read this as “slide ruling the world with an iron fist” and it gave me a chuckle
Removed by mod
So do you believe humans are, at their core and regardless of system, predisposed to destroy the planet?
Taking this frame of thinking to its inevitable end, you’re either going to mow down as many people as a first step towards omnicide or you’ve given up and you’re resigned with the destruction of the world, proving to yourself that if you aren’t willing to do something to “improve” things, it must be human nature. This is obviously not me saying to go do an omnicide, but your blackpilled frame of thinking is self-enforcing. If you felt like there was a better solution out there and that socialism was a direction towards less destruction such that generations after us could keep moving towards something better, you’d be able to help build it, but you don’t, so you are chained to your doom, determined to chain us with you. The handful of capitalists busy fucking the world thank you for giving up.
Removed by mod
But it’s because I know how much better things could be if humans could simply work together.
Yes, this is what socialism is going to achieve! Hop on board. If you know things could be better and this current system incentivizes destructive competition rather than working together, wouldn’t it make sense to think that a system that incentivizes cooperation leads to more cooperation as a default?
I’ve seen, in times of great crisis, people work together and help each other out even without being prompted or rewarded. But when the system is working normally, when people are going about their day-to-day, they might ignore a stranger in need or participate in convenient routines like fast food that harm the environment. I’m not arguing for us to be in a great crisis constantly, but it shows that people are hungry for connection and cooperation; it’s just the system that alienates people and ignores consequences caused by its existence. Capitalism isn’t an inevitability just as the divine right of kings wasn’t.
but I’ve seen time and time again that that’s not going to happen.
Yes, capitalists make sure to stop cooperation and self-reliance any chance they can get. They bomb and starve the solution to convince people that the solution doesn’t exist or isn’t viable. This doesn’t make socialism less of a solution.
the selfish gene is ruling the party
capitalism and imperialism is unprecedented in it’s global reach. if you look at human history you will see mostly asshole leaders being violently deposed whenever they start getting cocky.
it’s that time of existential threat again, and we shouldn’t hide behind empty claims of human nature for our duty when it has been shown time and again a better world is possible.
If you look at human history you will mostly see
Mostly? No you do not lol
Removed by mod
this is either defeatism or justification for inaction. in a we can’t possibly improve things so let’s succumb to nuclear winter (despite things being much better not that many years ago) kind of way.
that just isn’t true at all for most of humanity’s history. we lived in relatively peaceful communes for the vast majority of our history. human nature is cooperative.
and you might be way too used to western antics to notice quite a lot of our leaders did the best they could throughout history.
Yeah they blocked my comment about how in pre history humans fucking wrecked eco systems pre capitalism lol
As we all know, the Soviets were notoriously environmentalist.
So I guess The Economist is only western capitalist propaganda when we feel like it.
😂If we provide non-MB/FC-approved sources, you’ll dismiss them. If we provide MB/FC-approved sources, you’ll say, “gotcha“ and dismiss them.
It still doesn’t prove that socialism is automatically better for the environment. Just that one country wants to subvert the energy market because they’re reliant on sources beyond their control.
If China dominated the Middle East or had massive natural reserves like Russia I do not believe they’d be pushing alternative energy just because they’re socialist because that’s happened exactly never.
This isn’t a socialism vs capitalism thing. It’s geopolitics of nation-states. Even a communist country needs energy to defend itself.
Oh, no, honey. It is very much a capitalist thing.
Because Chinese fighter jets and tanks and ships run on sunshine and rainbows.
False dichotomy is false.
