• Coco@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    232·
    6 months ago

    So many examples of this.

    US absolutely torches any progress made in alternative fuels then goes on to claim no possible alternatives to fossil fuels.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      62·
      6 months ago

      There’s a law requiring ever-increasing amounts of biofuel to be mixed into everything. Biofuel has a ton of downsides that have great potential for a dust bowl 2.0, but that’s another topic. US researchers have every motivation to develop non-constly alternatives by virtue of investors, even if the investment only gives them a small bubble like Arcimoto’s minicars did. In fact, California is considering using hydrogen cars for parts of their network that don’t go past the speeds hydrogen fuel can support.

  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
    1416·
    6 months ago

    This is really one sided. I’m not saying there isn’t truth in it, but there are also other factors. Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states. They can be inefficient and stifle innovation. It often was just a power grab not an attempt to make a country better for everyone.

    I wouldn’t want to live in the mid 20. century idea of communism. But otherwise I support that the means of production belongs to the worker and anyone affected by the production.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      136·
      6 months ago

      Authoritarian is a meaningless word that anti-communists love to use without thinking. Every state holds authority by virtue of having a monopoly on violence, period. The only question is whose interests the authority of the state is exercised in. There is also zero evidence that communist states are inefficient of stifle innovation. In fact, vast majority of meaningful innovation under capitalism happens in the public sector. Finally, every communist state has vastly improved living conditions for the majority of the people. I recommend actually learning a bit of history instead of regurgitating nonsense you’ve been indoctrinated into.

      • forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml
        103·
        6 months ago

        They ignored the point that capitalism uses violent oppression to suppress innovation. Kind of a main point of the video. The evidence that other ideological regimes cannot innovate is always implicitly that capitalists won by military might therefore the interlocutor is compelled to concede a flawed premise from the outset.

        It’s like smashing the sportsball net then saying you won the game. Especially if one were to come from a scientific perspective that is not a proper comparison of technological innovation when you ensure nobody else can even try.

        Show us a world were different regimes compete scientific and technologically without resorting to violence against the others. We couldn’t have it because capitalists sabotage your science experiment, take your equipment, then declare themselves the winner.

        • SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          92·
          6 months ago

          Even with the US pouring every gram of the value generated by its citizens labor into violence and global oppression of socialism

          Even with the USSR spending all its money on its own citizens quality of life instead of enriching the bourgeois

          The Americans still lost 19/20 space race milestones and called themselves the winner

          If Reagan won 20 years earlier and torched American industry, science, and labor a little sooner we might have been posting this from the Jupiter orbital colony.

      • Jeremy List@hachyderm.io
        49·
        6 months ago

        @yogthos my dude you literally support an organisation that briefly toned down the capitalism in the place it governed before restoring it at gunpoint: you’re in absolutely no position to be going around calling others anti-communist.

      • NoiseColor@startrek.website
        39·
        6 months ago

        When people respond, there are a few different forms the response comes in. By far the worst is one that tries to completely deny the original post by finding weird circumstances in which individual statements of the op aren’t true and do so in a rude way and/or childishly patronising way.

        That’s you. Though, great that you like capitalisms public sector 😂.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          42·
          6 months ago

          It’s funny how holding nonsensical opinions always goes hand in hand with having poor reading comprehension. For example, nowhere did I say that I like capitalism’s public sector. What I actually said that public sector is where meaningful innovation happens even under capitalism, which directly contradicts the claim you made. I guess posting nonsense online is a lot easier than educating yourself on the subject you’re opining on. 😂

          • NoiseColor@startrek.website
            36·
            6 months ago

            You took something you liked, from something you don’t and said this is the part that makes your other thing great.

            And then called me to educate myself… again…

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              62·
              6 months ago

              So, what you’re saying is that you don’t understand that public and private sector are two different things. Gotcha!

              • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                35·
                6 months ago

                That’s a most strange assumption you made. Why would I know such a basic thing? Gotcha? This is very strange. How old are you?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  52·
                  6 months ago

                  I didn’t make any assumption your words speak for themselves. And old enough to recognize a troll when I see one. You ain’t fooling anybody here bud.