A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
We (USA) gave up on being clean energy leaders decades ago and now China has emerged in our place.
Now, between meddling in our universities, research granting system, and an insane HHS Secretary, we’re headed on the same path in a larger number of other science and technical fields, especially Medicine.
Also, we (USA) gave up on being the world leader in 2025 and now China has emerged in our place.
The US has never been a clean energy leader.
The article mentioned solar tech being first patented in the US, and even as recently as the 70s the government injected cash to push it forward.
So maybe not “Clean energy leader” per se, but certainly tech leader in the clean energy space.
A tech leader 55 years ago isnt a tech leader anymore. I donated a dollar to a solar development program, which is a larger percentage of my wealth than the US put forward of its. Am I a tech leader now too?
Because we gave up on it decades ago.
The correct wording would be to give up on becoming, giving up on being indicates that they were at the point they gave up.
Why are patents on clean energy developments allowed to begin with?
The same reason we allow them on any other technology — they create a financial incentive for innovation.
Because you need to horde the technology in order to secure private financing that builds the industrial productive capacity.
Who else is going to cover the up front costs? The government? Fuck you, that's Communism! You're going to kill 100 Zillion people
But that would work imply China isn't Communist...ahh, yes, I see your point.
I'm not sure if this is serious but China's a textbook definition of a mixed economy and has been since at least the 80s.
Their utilities are all state owned enterprises. They have an enormous public sector for housing, education, health care, transportation, etc. Then the private sector handles consumer logistics and private lending and luxury goods and entertainment, which is how you get a guy like Jack Ma or Hui Ka Yan arrested for embezzlement and fraud from time to time.
Being "state owned" isn't seizing the means of production. Workers largely remain alienated from the fruits of their labor.
Where? In a country with high quality of life, low cost of living, ample at-cost amenities, and a sub-60 retirement age? Is the material wealth of the nation distributed in an egalitarian manner Not Real Communism?
What then is Communism? Is Communism when everyone has a 401k full of private equities (worker ownership)? Is it when they all own the same number of Bitcoins? Does everyone just need their name on their company letterhead?
Marx would frown at confusing fictitious assets for material analysis.
Yeah, that's not what I'm getting at in the least. You have socialism when the workers receive the full benefits of their labor. You have communism when society is organized around providing what you can, and taking what you need. On a mass scale, I don't see this happening anywhere in the world, but it does exist in smaller groups.
You have socialism when the workers receive the full benefits of their labor.
You have socialism when the community receives the full benefit of working labor. Even then, trying to slap a puritanical lens that ignores the dramatic shift in social equity between pre-Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary China isn't materialist. To say a modern working class Chinese resident isn't enjoying a vastly larger share of their collective surplus labor, you've got to ignore a ton of social investment and commensurate benefits to the public.
But if you do want to be puritanical, we can go back to Old School Maoism. Per Michael Parenti, the Maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry. Hard to get more Communist than that. The catch was that China's subsequent divorce from global trade crippled their domestic economy and forced urban and rural proles into conflict. Dengism was an effort at reconciling the contradictions of industrial development.
We can debate the trade-offs. We can condemn the violence during the transition. But we cannot deny that these are Chinese people setting their own domestic policy. Maoism, Dengism, and Xi's Socialism With Chinese Characteristics aren't being imposed by Americans on Wall Street or the British Empire or the IMF Banking Committee. Chinese people are running the Chinese economy for the benefit of the collective community of Chinese residents.
On a mass scale, I don’t see this happening anywhere in the world
If you don't see it happening, you're not looking.
Or, you're attempting to apply Socialism and Communism in such an orthodox manner that you've defined "Real Leftism" it out of existence.
awful lot of astroturfing for China recently.
They've gone ahead and built a solar and wind power manufacturing juggernaut. Its a big deal for anybody like me who wants those deployed at scale. You'll find that I'm also critical of China on other topics.
Stolen tech.
There is a single light of science, to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
Suspiciously, all claimed stolen tech seems to be based on stolen knowledge…
everybody on every level starts off by copying and stealing, from individual people to organizations and companies up to entire countries and alliances. if we are to develop as a species, maybe sharing more unique knowledge and technology with each other is actually a way to progress.