Autocrats are perfectly capable of prioritising the people, and there are many cases in history of them doing so.
There's a reason this is always the exception and not the rule. Let me introduce you to The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey, based on the book The Dictator's Handbook.
You can absolutely critize the CCCP for lots of things, but greener than the USA?
The US gets 15% of its energy capacity from coal. China gets nearly 60% of its energy capacity from Coal and while a new coal fired power plant hasn't broken ground in the United States this century, China approved at least 5 GW of new coal power plants in the last five years.
Despite coal power being more dirty and expensive for China than renewables, they continue to subsidize energy from Coal and set quotas to limit renewables. China is the largest producer and consumer of coal and is the largest user of coal-derived electricity.
While in the United States the historically recognized limited freedom of the people to resist corporate power with popular direct action has lead to concessions and checks on industrial power, any similar dynamic in China is stunted. In order to save the planet, we must seek new political horizons beyond belligerent national tyrannies. Autocrats will not save us.
China will lose for the same reason the United States is losing. Making decisions that benefit people generally, either short term or long term, is exactly what autocracies are terrible at. For all the 'green washing' of China's domestic policy, they are tacitly supporting and funding a war of aggression in Ukraine, and expanding their military in order to annex Taiwan. If their goal was ecological harmony, neither of those things would make sense.
China's central leadership will burn their nation's children to fuel their expansionist ideology, not to mention coal or petrol. Incandescent lightbulbs and disposable plastic is peanuts compared to incandescent diesel tanks and disposable jets.
The 'China is winning' headline is effective clickbait for jingoistic nationalists, but it's misguided to think fanning a national spirit of competition will change US government policy against the will of US national corporate interests. The United States and Chinese government are the same parasite with different flags.
It's nice to see someone publicly admit their mistakes, criticize the inherent autocracy in building new utopian cities, and move away from corporate idealism toward participatory politics.
This text is a classic; it has been deeply influential in anarchist circles. Despite the title and the author, it is not an attack on anarchist philosophies or tactics. It is a very effective critique of groups that are doing something hierarchical and masking it as anarchist when it merely lacks visible structure to outsiders.
Alan Ritchson for B.J. Blazkowicz
The solution to the problem is often logging out, clearing SLRPNK.net cookies, and then logging back in.
Wait, so scientists are saying Tesla Cybertrucks were a bad idea? That doesn't make any sense, Elmo is a genius.
'Minarchism' in my book is a term invented by fascist and capitalist entryists, and people who use it to gatekeep anarchism should be on the other side of the gate.
They don't need to be 'appointed' by a king or politician in order to exist. Committees are one of the essential organs of actual right-now functioning real-life working large-scale anarchist groups. When done well, they include the voices of all of the significant stakeholders in a decision, and efficiently discover solutions that achieve the goal while respecting the autonomy and interests of all of the participants.
Don't @ me, but definitely reply to @JustJack23@slrpnk.net with the disemboweled anarchism you propose as an alternative.
I'm not asking you to read a book, but if you've never heard of CGP Grey before nor seen his short Rules for Rulers video, you're missing out.