Agree - I am an ardent capitalist, but a conscious capitalist. I believe the purpose of capitalism redirected can be used as a vehicle for massively changing economies and lives - such as in this case.
Afaik markets predate joint-stock companies. The concept of "raising capital" is much newer than the concept of a market economy. Did capitalism exist under feudalism? How do modern capital markets differ from historical markets under various other economic systems?
It's not capitalism, it's technology. That can often go together with capitalism, but Russia from 1917-60 and China from 1960-2025, say, are big counter-examples. As are the many poor countries with capitalist economies. Growth in electrification, transport infrastructure, manufacturing and mechanized agriculture will grow any economy, capitalist or socialist
Strongly disagree, you're example is nonsensical as it's normally used to prove the exact opposite. Nearly every quality of life improvement and economic boom in China and Russia during those periods are directly tied to adopting some parts of capitalistic systems.
Those that happened in the USSR and China, no? After the start of electrification and active mechanization of agriculture, more peasants died of hunger there than in the previous 100 years (in Russia more than in the previous 200 years).
That is simply how socialism works. Land as a mean of production is no different from a factory, so naturally, the products created on the land belong not to the peasants (Petite Bourgeoisie), but to society as a whole.
And guess what this bourgeoisie did when they found out that the grain they produced would now become common property (they sharply reduced the amount they producing).
> but Russia from 1917-60 and China from 1960-2025, say, are big counter-examples.
Russia and China are good examples of that.
We have Khrushchev's memoirs about how, before the communist revolution, he, as a simple worker, lived better than workers live 40 years after the revolution. That is, the period from 1917 to 1960 in the USSR was one of complete stagnation, despite all the technological progress.
And in the example of China in the second half of the 20th century, we see yet another confirmation: their standard of living was literally directly proportional to the level of implementation of capitalist mechanisms.
> As are the many poor countries with capitalist economies.
As far as I understand, there is not a single poor capitalist country. Name a single poor country where private property is reliably protected and people enjoy economic freedom. There is no such country. As soon as even the poorest country begins to protect private property and guarantee economic freedom, it becomes rich within 10 years or something.
You make some reasonable points. But you're wrong to discount technology. Consider what Russia and China would have looked like if they hadn't electrified and mechanized.
Are you confused by the idea that socialism and market are incompatible ideas, or is this a critique that they're merely selling and not manufacturing (therefore not fully owning the means of production)?
Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance.
Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level capitalistic allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism".
I think this is really insightful definition, username aside, I think forcing the conversation to include "oligarchical control" (the part people usually have issue with) prevents the lazy "but muh free market!" arguments when discussing our modern economic system
If the value is staying with local workers (social ownership) instead of being captured by some multinational, that's closer to a textbook definition of socialism than capitalism. How's that double-speak?
The solar panels are produced by outside of the country with companies applying massive economies of scale. I don't know what about this is socialist.
I guess it is vaguely leftist in the sense that poor 3rd worlders are benefiting. But whether a system is capitalist or not does not hinge on this sort of grievance-based thinking.
You're attempting to be sarcastic but that's actually accurate:
> Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance.
Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in.
> Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level <word> allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism".
Yes, it is. When the people who actually do the work own it.
>Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in.
But does the system eventually result in a small number of capitalists taking power or is it distributed over many capitalists? Not all monopolies are natural.
What is the "work" being done here? Manufacturing or installation? It's not like all of the solar companies are co-ops and contractors.
Solar is inherently distributed in non-centralized.
Because it's based on sunlight which is distributed and noncentralized and free.
With battery storage, the intermittency is solved largely. Maybe you have your own gasoline peaker.
With enough solar, and an electric vehicle, you have transportation independence.
And I'm no expert on the historical and political nature of agriculture and centralized control, but I could argue agriculture is also fundamentally decentralized, certainly within the modern standards of deep technological stack control.
So if you can get your food, energy, transportation, water by yourself or within a local network... Then while I wouldn't call that socialist, I would call that highly democratilized, is that a word?
Now traditionally you also needed centralized power for defense.
And I'm wondering if drones will provide a fundamental advantage to guerilla defense.
why are you happy? many African nations attempted socialism in the 20th century, and all of those states have since collapsed. trying the same failed strategy over and over doesn't bode well.
anyway, I hope they get electricity. the article said a lot about markets for something related to an ideology that rejects them.
> many African nations attempted socialism in the 20th century, and all of those states have since collapsed
This is false. Senegal attempted small-s socialism under its first postcolonial regime (under Léopold Sédar Senghor, 1960–1980) and has had democratic political succession to the present day.
