"Zelensky says allies asked him to scale back attacks on Russian energy"

[rantingcanuck@mstdn.ca]

@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce

Most petro-state's primary benefit from having fossil fuels is the ability to export them. If the non petro-states transition to renewables (which provides both environmental and national security benefits to them) it cuts off the export markets the petro-states rely on and that will force the petro-states to adopt green technology in turn.

[sibshops@mastodon.online]

@benroyce Maybe this is a sign to get off of fossil fuels.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Sibshops

yes of course

fossil fuels fund vile regimes

and there's climate change

but even if we forget morality or good strategy: it's fucking cheaper

the problem is it requires investment

our stupid fucking governments would rather suckle at the teat of fossil fuel money and maintain the status quo, rather than prepare for the future that is coming no matter their indolent heel dragging and corruption

[drangnon@hachyderm.io]

@benroyce how unamerican of you

> Fuck any country in Europe still stuck on #oil and #gas

Think instead of the Opportunity, to invest in infrastructure build out for electric cars, or to profit from introducing heat pumps and mini splits in hundreds year old buildings

.
.
.
Can't decide if I'm sarcastic here or not, hm

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@draNgNon

[axomamma@mastodon.online]

@benroyce wtf?

With "allies" like that, who needs enemies?

[rupert@mastodon.nz]

@benroyce Funny how the short term pain for long term gain guys currently gassing about the Usraeli war on Iran don't seem to think it applies to oil.
I wonder why that could be?

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce

It’s a nice piece. But Forbes avoids mentioning that the interviewee, “Energy Minister from 2008 to 2015”, was a member of a Broad Front government.

As China continues to show, strong socialist policies support converting to renewables. Meanwhile, free market economies support what the powerful industrialists prefer.

Want Greener policies? Get a more socialist government!

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Tattered @roblosricos @Npars01

i wouldn't agree with china as a depiction of socialism. more like capitalist totalitarianism. a smart one, for now. but all authoritarianism goes one way in the end, one way or another

you do understand that china is capitalist, yes?

[donchacale@mastodon.social]

@benroyce @Sibshops
they're building bunkers and stockpiling food and water and fuel and arms

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01

I understand.

I am very sympathetic to Xi. I lived in rural Western China for a year and I saw the effects of his policies on ordinary people. The reopening of the Shanghai stock exchange was by his predecessor. Xi has taken the revenue generated and poured it into public projects, aimed at lifting people out of poverty; cheaper energy, cheaper and more efficient public transport, government subsidies for opening mom & pop stores, fixed prices for food, and so on.

I often repeat the point that Xi knows what it’s like to go to school without shoes. I honestly believe that his support for the nation’s poorest people is heartfelt and genuine.

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01 One of my brighter students referred to China’s economy as “managed free market”. It’s a lovely tongue in cheek observation.

Further, I grew up in a capitalist UK economy that coexisted with a socialist welfare state. Aspects of Xi’s China have some similarities to mid 20th century UK Labour attempts at a halfway house. Fortunately, China doesn’t have a Tory Party dominating the national media, so the social projects should last longer.

[bltpizza@mastodon.social]

@benroyce We support democracy unless it makes gas expensive

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Tattered @roblosricos @Npars01

my friend

you can declare yourself a friend of the people

or you can declare yourself a friend of this:

China's Xi allowed to remain 'president for life' as term limits removed

China's Xi Jinping could stay in power indefinitely after parliament backs constitutional changes.

(www.bbc.com)

you can't do both

you're not an idiot. you know where that leads

and yes, the average citizen of china has put aside freedoms and rights because economic growth is a rocket ship

you do to?

and might i remind you, it's all due to capitalism

i don't champion capitalism. but it means you referring to socialism here is a puzzle

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Tattered @roblosricos @Npars01

ah

so you believe, under an autocratic system as in china, as opposed to a democratic system as in the uk, that there is a better chance for plutocratic forces to fade and socialist forces to dominate

that's a very interesting belief my friend, to put it as mildly as possible

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01

I think it would be fair to say that we would agree that the Republican Party, or the UK Conservative Party, and the Murdoch press are working counter to the interests of the working people.

Capitalism exists everywhere. Social projects are the only way that socialist governments can operate *within* a capitalist economy, like the Uruguayan example. Xi’s domestic policies are socialist in much the same way.

Do I think Xi should be President for life? No.
Do I think he deserves credit for lifting millions of people out of poverty and for increasing commitment to renewable energy? Yes.

I think I’d even praise DJT if he did these things. But we both know it’s a safe bet that he never would.

Do I trust the Chinese system to keep the working class safe under any leader? No (See the Cultural Revolution).
Do I trust capitalist parliamentarianism? Also no.

I am, I hope, not entirely a fool.

I know we have differences of opinion. We also share many of the same hopes.

I think it’s important to celebrate gains that are made towards those goals, even in systems we cannot wholeheartedly support.

Do I trust Xi entirely? No.
Do I think he has done more good for the people of the world than DJT, Netanyahu, MBS, or Putin? Yes.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Tattered @roblosricos @Npars01

nothing good comes out of authoritarianism

the democratic world is rotting under the forces of plutocracy, and will wind up as authoritarian if we don't get a handle on it

which is where china already is

china's success is due to capitalism, not socialism. and as a rights-trampling autocracy its plutocrat fate is already written

the solution, as you said

uruguay

democracy

strong social-democratic tradition

robust welfare state

champion uruguay

not china

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01 There are as many problems with democracy, as far as I can see.

No British Prime Minister has supported broad socialist policies since Wilson.

Democracies have been responsible for far more wars of aggression in my lifetime than autocracies.

European democracies are tending toward fascism, on a sliding scale from Orban to Macron deliberately obstructing the public choice of a socialist prime minister.

If we compare Xi with Obama, one of these leaders was engaged in overseas wars of aggression, in which he oversaw the use of drone warfare, with resultant civilian casualties. One of these leaders has also raised millions of his citizens out of abject poverty.

Democracy as an ideal is better than authoritarianism as an ideal. However, a number of fascist dictators have been installed by the democratic process, including Hitler. I live in a democracy that has had single-party rule for all but two short periods in its postwar history.

1/2

[tattered@social.vivaldi.net]

@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01

The problem with the PRC is succession. Who comes next? And how is that decided? The history of the PRC shows that it is a dangerous and unreliable process. Looking at the history of the G7 over the same period suggests that democracy, as it exists, is also a dangerous and unreliable process.

There are a lot of things that need to be changed in democracy in order to make it more representative, less influenced by big money, and so on. I know that’s something you passionately believe in: involvement in the decision making process by voting at every level. And you are correct.

Even so, if you judge world leaders by a few simple criteria (No wars of aggression; commitment to social projects; commitment to conversion to renewables), some key democracies haven’t produced a leader with the positive qualities of Xi. That is all I am saying. Not that the man, or his system is flawless; but that the leaders of the “free world” are, frequently, less capable of helping the people of their own country and other countries.

Xi is an autocrat. Agreed.
China is a one-party state. Agreed.
Yet, it has brought more into the lives of its citizens, and those of other countries, than most of the postwar leaders of democracies.

Surely, that raises questions about the kind of democracy we have.

2/2

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@Tattered @roblosricos @Npars01

yes china delivered those things

with capitalism. combined with no human rights. totalitarian capitalism

and so i look at your bio and i am struck at the contrast. between someone who proclaims rights, and yet is so eager to betray rights. and i wonder. is it a troll? do you lack the capacity to understand your profound hypocrisy?

i sniffed you out as a tankie from the get go. i just had to confirm it. and you did

my friend: