| > I don't disagree with that; what's your point, though? Are you trying to run with the association that "socialism=bad"? > I'm writing you from fairly-darn-Socialist (and fairly-darn-functional) Norway, so I'm not picking up. Socialism is bad, but Norway is not socialist. Norway is a market economy with a large welfare state. https://www.heritage.org/index/country/norway. The two things are completely different. Nearly all the countries that call themselves "democratic socialist" are in fact capitalist, with strong welfare states. Some, like Denmark and Sweden, and to a lesser extent Norway, are among the freest markets in the world. The lynchpin of the "Nordic model" is not socialism, but free markets that generate a large surplus, which is then taxed to provide a strong welfare system. Countries like Sweden have high taxes on individuals, even as they aggressively pursue deregulation and cut corporate taxes. The Nordic model is a strong contrast from the "New Deal" which was strongly anti-market. It was built on government regulation of the economy, price controls, nationalization of industries, etc. It was an economy where the government decided how much it should cost for a flight from New York to LA. The ends might have been similar to Nordic social democracy (higher social welfare), but the means were wholly different. Climate justice folks are advocating a return to the New Deal, not a turn to Nordic market-oriented welfare states. The "Green New Deal" is by its terms about a government takeover of the economy: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-... > It goes on to say that “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” See also: https://demandclimatejustice.org > In mitigation and adaptation (“maladaptation”) such as offsets and carbon trading, marketbased approaches to forests (REDD) and agriculture (“Climate Smart”), soil and water, large-scale geo-engineering, and techno-fixes, nuclear energy, mega hydro dams, agro-fuels, “clean” coal, GMOs, the waste to energy incineration industry, large-scale “re-modeling”; Also: https://www.peoplesdemands.org (referenced from the Global Climate Strike website) > 5. Facilitate and support non-market approaches to climate action. > we must take immediate action, including policies for stopping all new fossil fuel projects, drastically scaling up finance and technology transfer from rich countries to the global South, and eliminating dangerous distractions like carbon market schemes. > to reject false solutions like carbon markets, bioenergy and techno-fixes |
Well, then, there you go: that's the meaning of the word, then. Or at least it certainly is to a lot of people.
I think we again don't much disagree, other than in a very surface level about the words. I go out for a beer with some Norwegians, and they self-describe to me as having ideals they call "socialist", because they're ideals around being social and building a society together, and that's what the word means to them. I accept this definition. Maybe you've got a different one in mind; words are tricky like that.
I similarly don't know what to tell you about the utility of taking the precise wording of websites as the ultimate truth of anything. Did every person in every klimastreik around the world read those two websites and sign off total agreement on every detail they proclaimed? Probably not.
I offered anecdata that many people on the ground, even around those causes, are very positive to carbon taxes or other forms of market-aware schemes to make a difference. It is, of course, anecdata. You can take it as a note of hope, perhaps? Or, not. Up to you.