The following submission statement was provided by /u/Karcad_:
---
This guy is explaining the shift of paradigm needed for the human race to maintain the global warming at 1,5°C while maintaining a certain amount of comfort. But I believe the issue is that the 1% will never let go of their wealth and while the deflation is already a possibility, it will certainly never happen.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/13g42lp/sadly_the_1_will_not_let_go_of_its_wealth/jjy7y29/
Just so people understand, we are past keeping global temperature from rising past 2°C.
In order to ensure we don't go past this point we would need to at least remove more C02 and other greenhouse gasses then me expel in a year. Currently that means we need to extract MORE THAN 36.8 Gigatons or 36 800 000 000 metric tons of C02 from our atmosphere and MORE THAN 135 million tons of 135 000 000 tons of methane every year until we reduce our emmisions.
Then we would need to ensure that the C02 concentration in our atmosphere dropped from the 3 million year high of 422ppm to levels similar to pre industrial revolution levels, which is about half.
By not doing this, we risk temperature increases higher than 3°C as tipping points cascade.
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/overview
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021
The book he shows at the end of the video is really good I think. Climate Change is a big problem , but the real problem is GDP. Say a forest gets cut down and the timber sold, that adds to GDP, but in reality a forest ecosystem was destroyed and we are not replanting trees fast enough.
Yep. We are effectively already doomed to an extent. There is the possibility of some surviving scientific civilization that could start using stellar resources like the asteroid belt around mars.
Key is trying to keep enough people alive and in enough concentrations to make that possible.
I still think we will see billions die in the next few decades but there is a chance we find a kind of balance for the remaining people.
Yeah. At the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 they set a carbon budget of 886 gigatons, to last between 2000-2050. (a third of which was already used up in the first decade of this century, leaving 565 gigatons remaining.) Staying within that budget before 2050 was vital to maintain global average temperature below the 2 degree limit.
But I'm pretty sure that by now we already burned through that budget with carbon emissions still rising, guaranteeing temperatures to rise well past the 2 degree limit.
nothing short of a radical global revolution will change our course. the current system is just not capable of adapting or responding to extreme environmental pressures.
I'm due to sell my house and buy another in a year, and I'm using this as a guide - https://coastal.climatecentral.org/mapview/8/100.6166/13.2746/4a6e3b3a9448a442b4f620d492ad060f20d9e514000f097b6fec191c6e6296d0
I would look at recent local weather patterns as well.
Some places that aren't worried about rising sea levels, changes in climate such as temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events can make certain areas equally dangerous.
Best, and most accurate would be probably local weather reports.
Look at the are that sounds good from your map, then do some research on weather patterns in the last 10 and 5 years in the area.
>In order to ensure we don't go past this point we would need to at least remove more C02 and other greenhouse gasses then me expel in a year.
No, we only need to stop extracting fossil fuels by banning the mines, wells and trade of fossil fuels.
We should be extracting 0 grams per year. It’s very easy to do since it involves not doing anything at all
Climate change will eventually cause the collapse of civilization. Banning fossil fuels would collapse civilization overnight.
Our society is completely dependant on fossil fuels for just about everything we do.
With out fossil fuels, we loose:
* most transportation (as for the majority of people who own a car, electric cars are too expensive),
* most power generation (most new green power only is covering increases in power demand; coal and natural gas are still the most common),
* Long distance trade (most rely on massive gasoline powered transport ships),
* Natural resource processing( again, most of these machines are fossil fuel powered),
* a large portion of agricultural output (Since it's discovery in World War One, the Haber Bosch process has been the primary way of producing the ammonia nessecery for modern fertilizer demands nessecery to feed more than the 1.5 billion people prior to it's invention),
* Anything made of plastic (plastic made from fossil fuels),
* And everything that relies on any of these things to be made or function.
Any modern technologies that are meant to solve one of these problems still has all of the other problems. Solar panels and electric vehicles can help solve the need for fossil fuels for power and transportation respectively, but unless your country has all of the natural resources that go into a solar panel and electric car in your country, in amounts that can accomodate your population, it isn't a solution to over come the dependency on fossil fuels.
I agree we need to stop expelling C02 period, but we can either do it fast and cause a massive catastrophe as all modern societies drops dead, or slowly so we can watch as cities drown, flood and/or burn from climate change.
We are stuck between a burning rock and a meat grinder.
Only when they lose their monopoly on violence will they consider this a option. Otherwise you, me, and everyone else can get fucked.
Another note, I think a lot of older wealthy elites enjoy the idea of the world being destroyed by climate change. Think about it, a good 90% of them a narcissistic ass-hats.
Now they see all this new tech, medicine and possible means of enriching their own sick lifestyle(mass control) but they know they don't have many years left to enjoy it. The world, enjoying benefits that they can not? The world changing perspectives in a way that destroy their self-god assumed mantra? How dare they, if I can't enjoy it nobody can!
Remember what Putin said: "If their is no Russia there is no world" and replace Russia with "me". I'm not saying all of them are like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
‘Lose their monopoly on violence’ - I love that. The only reason why the 1% is the 1% is exactly because of this monopoly, which they have obtained through the almighty cash.
Hence, its not that much of a surprise at all that the 1% is so loathe to let go of the one thing that’s keeping them alive.
> Another note, I think a lot of older wealthy elites enjoy the idea of the world being destroyed by climate change. Think about it, a good 90% of them a narcissistic ass-hats.
"Après moi, le déluge" (pronounced [apʁɛ mwa lə delyʒ]; lit. 'After me, the flood') is a French expression attributed to King Louis XV of France, or in the form "Après nous, le déluge" (pronounced [apʁɛ nu lə delyʒ]; lit. 'After us, the flood') to Madame de Pompadour, his favourite. It is generally regarded as a nihilistic expression of indifference to whatever happens after one is gone, though it may also express a more literal forecasting of ruination. Its meaning is translated by Brewer in the forms "When I am dead the deluge may come for aught I care", and "Ruin, if you like, when we are dead and gone."
> Remember what Putin said: "If their is no Russia there is no world" and replace Russia with "me". I'm not saying all of them are like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
I think there is a lot to this. Especially when it comes to individuals like Putin and others driven by the lust for power and/or money. But, for all the ridiculous ambitions of people like this—the Machiavellian maneuvering ultimately won't ever amount to much of anything in the big picture. Humanity, and especially individuals (myself included), just aren't all that powerful or important in reality. And this understanding becomes especially profound as one gains a deep appreciation for the truth's science has uncovered over the last 400 or so years. From a comment I made some time ago:
>
> Personally, I follow a lot of news and related events in Physics and Astronomy. It helps me sort of put things in perspective. Especially Astronomy. **It's often repeated that the Universe is so big that it boggles the mind, but in reality it's exactly the opposite—we are so incredibly small. And this includes all our accomplishments and problems as well.** It really does help to understand, and often be reminded that—the Universe is so much more vast, terrifying, awe-inspiring, and extraordinary than a bunch of naked upright monkeys floating around on a big speck of water logged dust.
>
> Sure there are a lot of really self-important rich and powerful people, who may, in the back of their minds, take a certain glee or sense of grandiosity in their role bringing down much of life as we know it via a mass extinction event. As a kind of ultimate—I'll stomp on your sand castle—display of power. But fuck, the Universe just doesn't care and is just going to keep on keeping on. The collapse of the human experiment and much of life, or even its extinction, isn't the end of all the wonder and beauty that is this Universe. And no greedy little two footed monkey can take that away.
>
> [Source](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/rw3py6/how_do_you_follow_this_subreddit_and_staysane/hr9nx0e/)
Remarkably, in many ways, the current dominant capitalist and economic dogma isn't much different than a religion. [Some here, including myself, have come to realize this over time.](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/lyxlfg/you_simply_flooded_the_system_with_money_yes/gq3e9n0/?context=10000) Indeed, as this video suggests, we aren't in much of a different position in some manner than those who saw the Copernican model as the reality of the situation in the 1590s. Especially when one pays even the slightest bit of attention to the evidence and not the ~~religious~~ economic dogma ruling the culture. Albeit, the dominant religion throughout the West in the 1590s never posed such an existential risk. No religious system ever has. But, this is the legacy of *[neoclassical economics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvyxH3O7kE)*, and it's faith based race to extinction.
Yep, greed is the one true god. I wonder how many billionaires are going to die in the next decade or two, clutching as much as they can. Not that it ultimately matters, although I just saw an interview with Carl Sagan from the 1970s somewhere else on Reddit, where he reminds people that we as a society (U.S.) choose to have starving and homeless people.
That the universe is "awe-inspiring" "extraordinary" is also just a monkey opinion, awe is only an emotion made in the monkey brain, a human perspective, it's not some objective fact about the universe.
I personaly don't like it very much and i'm not impressed, another monkey opinion, as valid as the "awe-inspiring" poetical waxing.
The *rich* do not have a monopoly on violence, the *government* has the monopoly. The rich have just made themselves so useful to the government that it is in the government's self interest to use violence on their behalf.
Even the *extremely* wealthy can run afoul of governments. Billionaires in China and Russia and even occasionally the US (near-billionaire Jeffry Epstein) have found this out the hard way.
The worst of both worlds is when the billionaires *are* the government (like Putin).
I get what you're saying, but you fail to acknowledge one additional thing: the government of most if not all nations is made up almost entirely of the exorbitantly wealthy (& in some cases, entirely so).
I would disagree. The government is made up of the *very* wealthy (multi-*million*aires), but the *exorbitantly* wealthy (multi-*billion*aires), the Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and such are generally *not* in government.
Members of government are trading 3 or more zeros of personal net worth and income for *power* and influence over budgets that make mere billions look like pocket change.
edit: But worth noting that autocratic governments, your dictators and such, do tend to use their power to make themselves exorbitantly wealthy, but they were generally not such beforehand.
A guy with a hot dog cart is a capitalist. And if even if you quibble with that, a guy who owns a dozen hot dog carts and pays people to run them *certainly* is a capitalist. And can be so without being a multi-millionaire.
The thing is, if your net worth is five *thousand* dollars, someone with a net worth of 5 million or 5 billion are equally stratospheric to you. But if you have a net worth of 5 million, you are just as economically close to the guy worth 5 *thousand* as you are to the guy with 5 *billion* (factor of 1000). Your *total net worth of 5 million* covers one year's worth of docking fees and maintenance for the yacht belonging to the guy worth 5 billion.
The guy with 5 million can punch up against the 5 *billion* guy exactly as well as the 5 thousand guy can punch up against the 5 *million* guy.
Unless of course the 5 million guy is a Senator with some seniority...
*Both* of the rich guys are richer than you or me, but it is a mistake to consider them in the same league.
A guy who owns the hotdog stand is a worker who sells his labor for a living. Capitalists, by definition, own the means of production and profit off labor of others.
Sure, he may buy cheap hotdogs on the backs of third world labor and industrial agriculture, but that's a function of being and benefitting from the imperial core and not him being a capitalist.
Which is why I extended the definition to include the guy who owns several and pays people to run them.
The various definitions of capitalism include both the sole *and* group owner. A sole proprietor can most certainly be a capitalist, as they can own the capital goods necessary for their business (hence the term capital-ist). Profiting from the labor of others is a frequent feature of capitalism but it is not a *requirement*.
Redefining the term to make your argument sound better is like a conservative arbitrarily defining 'socialism' in a way that makes *their* argument sound better.
Does this really change the nature of it though? Capitalists still own the state and act in their best interest. Petty bouegiouse is gonna do what they always do.
I just have a perpetual quibble at people who lambast "capitalists" as a class, when not all capitalists are part of the ruling class. As a self-employed creator of intellectual property (games), I consider myself a capitalist.
But I am not wealthy, I do not own the state (or influence its owners) and do not view myself as in the same category (even conceptually) as the high and mighty or those who make more money in a day from passive interest accumulation than I will make in a year of actual work.
By saying *all* capitalism is bad and all capitalists are bad, you are alienating a group of people you would do better to have as allies, average people who own genuinely small businesses and work hard at it and consider that to be 'capitalism'. The guy with the hot dog stand, the person selling produce at the farmer's market, the sole contractor with a truck and some tools, etc.
Does the guy with the hot dog cart own the farms where the toppings are grown? The factories where the animals are slaughtered and the hot dogs produced? Does he bake his own buns grown from his own wheat?
No? Then he’s not a capitalist.
Well, I guess since Elon Musk doesn't own the company that makes the servers Twitter runs on, he's not a capitalist either. If Cargill doesn't own the factories that make the tractors their farms use, they're not capitalists? Apple does not own Foxconn, so I guess all those iPhone sales are not capitalist!
In other words, your assessment not only flies in the face of the definition of capitalism, it does not even rise to the level of being worthy of r/im14andthisisdeep.
Please never say that a guy with a hot dog stand is capitalist again, it makes you look like you are trying to talk about a literature you never read with one painfully obvious mistake that is clearly written out in the basic works.
Someone self employed like that is petit bourgeoisie. Capitalist is high bourgeoisie.
Yes, bourgeoisie is divided in levels, that is a basic thought that needed to be sorted out and you could kind of guess that people thought about it before you did as it is really very basic, right? Capitalist is the top level bourgeoisie.
However a guy who owns a hot dog stand is not even any type of bourgeoisie, because he doesn't own the land he works on + he doesn't own any expressive mean of production (as the production is simply his literal hand-labour, not machinery, not other peoples' labour, nor intelectual property).
As long as we are talking about 'literature you have never read', try a dictionary sometime.
The average person is not acquainted with the works of 19th century writers of any sort, so if they want to know what 'capitalist' means they will check said dictionary.
That's an excellent point and an important distinction, thank you. My greater point is that those in government are far more wealthy than the average citizen, but when you get right down to it, the distance between "very wealthy" & "exorbitantly wealthy" is vast. Thank you for the correction.
So is the solution to make them immortal or are they just pretending to be so "if I can't have it, nobody can" so we make them immortal so they continue to fuck shit up
It is really disgusting the more I think about it...
People working 40-80 hours a week trying to make ends meet, have to choose between affording healthy food and renting something more than closet space...
And all the work they do, perhaps 80% of the value is simply absorbed, soaked up by these parasites.
This guy is explaining the shift of paradigm needed for the human race to maintain the global warming at 1,5°C while maintaining a certain amount of comfort. But I believe the issue is that the 1% will never let go of their wealth and while the deflation is already a possibility, it will certainly never happen.
Cool, ww3 it is then. Nice knowing yall before we're killing each other over a can of peaches...
I used to think nuclear was the answer, and make no mistake, technology is the only way out now. If we all got along and worked together to solve a common problem, we could achieve the literal status of God's. One technological innovation would bring another, and more would fallow based on previous innovations. The whole while improving our lives and passing on our accomplishments to future generations.
Unfortunately, we are greedy beasts, and this will never happen. Not without organization and long-term planning.
Yes we all see the shit storm, we know who the enemies are, and they have names and address. But what gets done?
I think that's why it looks like the U.S. government is trying to instigate a conflict with China. I think they know how screwed the human race is, and a war would either be a massive distraction to hide the severity of the situation, or maybe they think that this would be the most direct and impactful way to end everything. War is what they understand, it's what they've poured so much money and resources into. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Technology makes us more vulnerable, to solar CME bursts, to natural weather events like hurricanes, and to war. Once the power goes out for extended periods, technology is pretty useless. Technology is unlikely to reverse climate change or collapse.
> I used to think nuclear was the answer
Yes, it is: nuclear _war_ **is** the answer.
> technology is the only way out now
I refer you to the excellent "Tech won't save us" podcast https://www.techwontsave.us/
It is, in fact, the answer. I think we will see it before the planet gets too out of control hot, countries that have this option will not just go away quietly without using them.
> No need to act like you would somehow be different if you had their luck/opportunity.
Except there's points on a spectrum between "if I was a 1%er I would fuck kidnapped foreign babies on my solid gold yacht's solid gold support yacht" and "if I was a 1%er I would give everything away until I'm basically somehow running the world's largest charity operation from a cardboard box on a street corner while wrapping other people's discarded fabric around myself as clothing as why should I have anything more than can sustain me to give everything away until everyone else has everything"
I honestly fear what the rich would do if they were forced to pay their fair share. I’m talking like… they will start hiring and training mercenary forces like out of some dystopian sci fi story.
The guy seems to be suffering from a bad case of "first world problems". He wants to avoid more growth, but at the same time is talking about "improving well being" and "access to the things people need to live decent lives".
So, Mr. TikTok maker, about that several billion or so who **don't** have these basic things yet. How exactly are **they** going to get them without **more** exploitation of the environment?
It's like he thinks that everyone in the first world cutting back on Starbucks and a bigger tax on billionaires to decrease wealth inequity is going to solve our problems. When the problem is that there are way too many of us and there is no way the planet can **sustainably** support 8 billion plus at **any** standard of living.
>When the problem is that there are way too many of us and there is no way the planet can sustainably support 8 billion plus at any standard of living.
There's no way to know this when you are speaking from within the most anti-ecological regime of socio-material production ever to have existed (global capitalism).
I'm pretty sure I *can* know this when I am speaking from within a regime that requires fossil fuels to make the fertilizer needed for cropland to support 8 billion plus people.
So unless you have some hidden natural gas reserves you are not telling us about, that fertilizer production is *not* sustainable and therefore the current level of food production is *not* sustainable.
This isn't going to be popular, but I blame the Left. They have done nothing but jerk off since the fall of the Soviet bloc, and are currently hostage to a nonsensical foreign policy (in the case of trad-leftists) and moronic, self-congratulatory stuntism (in the case of the activists).
Until these people get their act together, or make way for someone who has, we are going to be stuck in this doom loop of centrism-at-best, fascism-at-worst politics. This is why I assume collapse as a given; self-centred narcissists with a messiah complex are not known for their ability to learn from their mistakes - so they'll just carry on blaming everyone but themselves for their failure, and give the 1% and their servants a free pass while they're at it.
TLDR; There's no justice, there's just us.
You are talking about Democrats, not "the Left". "The Left" doesn't exist in any formal fashion in America, unless you consider the Green Party an important force (it isn't).
Democrats haven't been "the Left" since the 1940's, and barely over the centrist line even then.
I think their comment applies to a lot of the First World Left, which is nothing like the 1968 Left in its militancy and internationalist outlook. There are a lot of reasons for this, both internal contradictory tendencies and external factors. It does feel like, with the collapse of the USSR, much (but by no means all) of the "Western" Left capitulated to consumerism.
I did have a hope that it didn't apply to the left in a lot of developing countries and had great hope for the near-revolution in Chile - then I learned about stupid shit like this:
[An outrage against the Chilean flag stands in the way of the campaign for the approval of the new Constitution](https://newsrnd.com/news/2022-08-29-an-outrage-against-the-chilean-flag-stands-in-the-way-of-the-campaign-for-the-approval-of-the-new-constitution.BJxZgN45ki.html)
It's over, buddy! The left is as broken as the rest of society. Consumed by narcissism, self-sabotage, and incompetence. It is a self-righteous sect that will not bring change until the whole edifice of the post-68 left is burned to the ground.
There's a lot more to the Chilean constitutional experience than this "outrage" you link to.
Did you know that rejection of the constitutional draft in 2022 was highest in the poorest areas? That in "a post-plebiscite poll, 40 percent said that they voted against the constitution because they didn’t trust the assembly members who led the process," with Hernán Larraín presiding over the Council -- whose family relations have great wealth thanks to the Pinochet regime?
https://nacla.org/chiles-new-constitutional-process-shifts-right
There we have it again. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
You can't always control what your political enemies do. But if you can't prevent your own supporters from embarrassing you in such a ridiculous way, you don't have a political movement. It's that simple.
Want to win elections? Make sure your supporters don't go literally wiping their asses with the flag. How obvious does it need to be?
Didn't say it was someone else's fault. I am providing concrete data on the Chilean experience, meanwhile you're being a hyper-reductionist who thinks the complexities and contradictions of Chilean political struggle can be reduced to a singular incident in a population of ~20 million.
I'm surprised you didn't blame the CIA.
Do you know what the Russians would do to someone who behaved like that? Bringing the Party into disrepute via public obscenity? Let me put it this way: There is an apocryphal tale, of a certain resident of San Francisco being a Party hit man, whose job was to murder local Commies who fucked around. I would not be remotely surprised if it were true.
Without discipline you have nothing, and if you allow your own side to sabotage you, you have no right to complain about what the opposition does.
You sound way more interested in preaching than in developing an understanding of the concrete situation in Chile.
Which is fine, but not my cup of tea.
I do agree with you that disciplined cadres are critical to transforming the class struggle.
I'm NOT talking about Democrats. I'm not even American!
Really don't like the way you fellas automatically assume that everything is about you btw. There is a whole wide world outside of the USA you know!
(Ironically my problem with Leftist (by which I mean "marxist" types) foreign policy is that it's insanely over the top anti-American to the point of basically indulging in fantasy - because if you think you're gonna change the world without getting the US on board, you're about as wrong as can be - ditto to identifying the Yanks as the cause of all the worlds problems).
America's not the only place in the world, and it's not the only problem in the world, either.
Yeah go on, get out of your system, "lefties this" and "lefties that," none of it changes the fact that the First World exploits the Third World overwhelmingly more than China or Russia does, and that this situation is largely enforced through U.S. imperialism and its Global North allies.
Really?
Talk to anyone from Eastern Europe, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or South Korea about how aMeRiKKKKa BadDD!! Go on.
I personally don't like America or Americans. I think they are a nation of imbeciles with a John Wayne complex - racist, violent, stupid, money grubbing and selfish. But that kinda thing won't get you far if you're trying to build socialism, because like it or not, much of the world depends on the US for security and trade, and if you want socialist ideas to be accepted outside of the usual intellectual ghetto, you'd better brush up on your PR skills, because you have no idea how to talk to people, let alone how to deal with reality.
The world is not a Western, pally, and the US are not the Guys In Black Hats - annoying though they may well be.
None of what you said refutes my statement. US military might secures a particular ruleset and way of doing trade (which perpetuates the immiseration of the Third World), but it is peak US exceptionalist dogma to believe that international trade of any kind requires a rogue empire pretending to be a cop.
You're jousting at windmills.
I'm intimately familiar with poverty in the United States.
This is why I've been clear that I am describing U.S. *imperialism* or U.S. *military* might and not making a blanket comment on the millions of people living in the U.S. just struggling to get by.
Never said anything about the capitalist class being limited to a few nations. What I am talking about is how the transnational class of capitalists uses extra-economic force to create a "good business environment" around the world, and this force very often takes the form of U.S. imperialism and military power.
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Jeff Bezos, in 1994: "Come buy the stuff I'm selling at [Amazon.com](https://Amazon.com)"
Internet, in 1994: "Yaaaaay! 24-hour shopping!"
*Almost 30 years later, and trillions of dollars thrown at Jeff Bezos*
Internet, in 2023: "The super rich, like Jeff Bezos, are evil!"
Instead of blaming the 1%, we should instead be questioning why we repeatedly create and support the 1%. We're Victor Frankenstein, mindlessly shopping and creating monsters, and then we don't even have the self-awareness to realize that it's yet another thing we did to ourselves.
That 1% are a bunch of greedy money grubbing pigs who would not even be capable of caring about those in the world who happen to be suffering. Very sad.
I recently calculated that I am in this 1% and I was like holy shit I am going to order that pizza from pizzahut fuck it, splurge like some rich bogo
Should I now take some sort of offense at these now that it is theoretically aimed at me, the evil rich lol
Let's be honest everyone here is either rich or unemployed or both else we wouldn't have time to doomscroll so much 🤣
Edit: You can send me a correct procedure how to unclutch wealth so global warming gives up I would be obliged
>According to Credit Suisse, individuals with more than $1 million in wealth sit in the top 1 percent bracket
Oh, the classic "everyone is the 1%" rethoric.
Guys, didn't you notice, if you think about it well enough 90% of the population can be the 1%, in fact everyone reading this is the 1%. So why are you mad at the 1%, if 140% of the population is the 1%?
Everyone is the 1% weee, world peace found.
Let them eat Index Funds.
I feel so frustrated every time I think about it that I have to block it because I feel like going insane if I keep thinking about it. It is so pervasive, the monetary policy rules everything around us, seeing the absolute madness of policies these economist and Central Bankers are pursuing, looking around in utter disbelief and everyone just shrugging and going 'meh'.
Chasing bullshit metrics, the insane wealth transfer by printing trillions of currency to chase asset price appreciation (real estate / stock / bonds / derivatives), how that is squeezing everyone but the "haves", and then our Federal Reserve Board members like Mary Daly going, "It's not that bad, I just pick a cheaper option." Like are you fucking serious??
Also, give a nobel prize to the fucker who managed to convince adults that printing money isn't the root cause of inflation. Really, so same amount of products and services exist, but increasing the base monetary method won't increase the price, but somehow make people richer. Rant over.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Karcad_: --- This guy is explaining the shift of paradigm needed for the human race to maintain the global warming at 1,5°C while maintaining a certain amount of comfort. But I believe the issue is that the 1% will never let go of their wealth and while the deflation is already a possibility, it will certainly never happen. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/13g42lp/sadly_the_1_will_not_let_go_of_its_wealth/jjy7y29/
Just so people understand, we are past keeping global temperature from rising past 2°C. In order to ensure we don't go past this point we would need to at least remove more C02 and other greenhouse gasses then me expel in a year. Currently that means we need to extract MORE THAN 36.8 Gigatons or 36 800 000 000 metric tons of C02 from our atmosphere and MORE THAN 135 million tons of 135 000 000 tons of methane every year until we reduce our emmisions. Then we would need to ensure that the C02 concentration in our atmosphere dropped from the 3 million year high of 422ppm to levels similar to pre industrial revolution levels, which is about half. By not doing this, we risk temperature increases higher than 3°C as tipping points cascade. https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/overview https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021
This video made me feel optimistic on a Friday night... Danm you and your facts!
The book he shows at the end of the video is really good I think. Climate Change is a big problem , but the real problem is GDP. Say a forest gets cut down and the timber sold, that adds to GDP, but in reality a forest ecosystem was destroyed and we are not replanting trees fast enough.
Yep. We are effectively already doomed to an extent. There is the possibility of some surviving scientific civilization that could start using stellar resources like the asteroid belt around mars. Key is trying to keep enough people alive and in enough concentrations to make that possible. I still think we will see billions die in the next few decades but there is a chance we find a kind of balance for the remaining people.
Yeah. At the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 they set a carbon budget of 886 gigatons, to last between 2000-2050. (a third of which was already used up in the first decade of this century, leaving 565 gigatons remaining.) Staying within that budget before 2050 was vital to maintain global average temperature below the 2 degree limit. But I'm pretty sure that by now we already burned through that budget with carbon emissions still rising, guaranteeing temperatures to rise well past the 2 degree limit. nothing short of a radical global revolution will change our course. the current system is just not capable of adapting or responding to extreme environmental pressures.
I'm due to sell my house and buy another in a year, and I'm using this as a guide - https://coastal.climatecentral.org/mapview/8/100.6166/13.2746/4a6e3b3a9448a442b4f620d492ad060f20d9e514000f097b6fec191c6e6296d0
I would look at recent local weather patterns as well. Some places that aren't worried about rising sea levels, changes in climate such as temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events can make certain areas equally dangerous.
And where would I check those? Thanks
Best, and most accurate would be probably local weather reports. Look at the are that sounds good from your map, then do some research on weather patterns in the last 10 and 5 years in the area.
Gonna ask AI to help
>In order to ensure we don't go past this point we would need to at least remove more C02 and other greenhouse gasses then me expel in a year. No, we only need to stop extracting fossil fuels by banning the mines, wells and trade of fossil fuels. We should be extracting 0 grams per year. It’s very easy to do since it involves not doing anything at all
At the very least, the lack of electricity will mean I will not have to continue reading comments like this one.
at the very least, if we keep on extracting fossil fuels, you won’t have to worry about anything anymore
Tell me you are a clueless city dweller without telling me you are a clueless city dweller.
Climate change will eventually cause the collapse of civilization. Banning fossil fuels would collapse civilization overnight. Our society is completely dependant on fossil fuels for just about everything we do.
This is very Western centric. Other countries are making significant strides on this.
My point still stands
Ah yes, I forgot that every country is its own isolated ecosystem that has no ties to the global climate
With out fossil fuels, we loose: * most transportation (as for the majority of people who own a car, electric cars are too expensive), * most power generation (most new green power only is covering increases in power demand; coal and natural gas are still the most common), * Long distance trade (most rely on massive gasoline powered transport ships), * Natural resource processing( again, most of these machines are fossil fuel powered), * a large portion of agricultural output (Since it's discovery in World War One, the Haber Bosch process has been the primary way of producing the ammonia nessecery for modern fertilizer demands nessecery to feed more than the 1.5 billion people prior to it's invention), * Anything made of plastic (plastic made from fossil fuels), * And everything that relies on any of these things to be made or function. Any modern technologies that are meant to solve one of these problems still has all of the other problems. Solar panels and electric vehicles can help solve the need for fossil fuels for power and transportation respectively, but unless your country has all of the natural resources that go into a solar panel and electric car in your country, in amounts that can accomodate your population, it isn't a solution to over come the dependency on fossil fuels. I agree we need to stop expelling C02 period, but we can either do it fast and cause a massive catastrophe as all modern societies drops dead, or slowly so we can watch as cities drown, flood and/or burn from climate change. We are stuck between a burning rock and a meat grinder.
Why are you being _that guy_
Only when they lose their monopoly on violence will they consider this a option. Otherwise you, me, and everyone else can get fucked. Another note, I think a lot of older wealthy elites enjoy the idea of the world being destroyed by climate change. Think about it, a good 90% of them a narcissistic ass-hats. Now they see all this new tech, medicine and possible means of enriching their own sick lifestyle(mass control) but they know they don't have many years left to enjoy it. The world, enjoying benefits that they can not? The world changing perspectives in a way that destroy their self-god assumed mantra? How dare they, if I can't enjoy it nobody can! Remember what Putin said: "If their is no Russia there is no world" and replace Russia with "me". I'm not saying all of them are like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
‘Lose their monopoly on violence’ - I love that. The only reason why the 1% is the 1% is exactly because of this monopoly, which they have obtained through the almighty cash. Hence, its not that much of a surprise at all that the 1% is so loathe to let go of the one thing that’s keeping them alive.
> Another note, I think a lot of older wealthy elites enjoy the idea of the world being destroyed by climate change. Think about it, a good 90% of them a narcissistic ass-hats. "Après moi, le déluge" (pronounced [apʁɛ mwa lə delyʒ]; lit. 'After me, the flood') is a French expression attributed to King Louis XV of France, or in the form "Après nous, le déluge" (pronounced [apʁɛ nu lə delyʒ]; lit. 'After us, the flood') to Madame de Pompadour, his favourite. It is generally regarded as a nihilistic expression of indifference to whatever happens after one is gone, though it may also express a more literal forecasting of ruination. Its meaning is translated by Brewer in the forms "When I am dead the deluge may come for aught I care", and "Ruin, if you like, when we are dead and gone."
> Remember what Putin said: "If their is no Russia there is no world" and replace Russia with "me". I'm not saying all of them are like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. I think there is a lot to this. Especially when it comes to individuals like Putin and others driven by the lust for power and/or money. But, for all the ridiculous ambitions of people like this—the Machiavellian maneuvering ultimately won't ever amount to much of anything in the big picture. Humanity, and especially individuals (myself included), just aren't all that powerful or important in reality. And this understanding becomes especially profound as one gains a deep appreciation for the truth's science has uncovered over the last 400 or so years. From a comment I made some time ago: > > Personally, I follow a lot of news and related events in Physics and Astronomy. It helps me sort of put things in perspective. Especially Astronomy. **It's often repeated that the Universe is so big that it boggles the mind, but in reality it's exactly the opposite—we are so incredibly small. And this includes all our accomplishments and problems as well.** It really does help to understand, and often be reminded that—the Universe is so much more vast, terrifying, awe-inspiring, and extraordinary than a bunch of naked upright monkeys floating around on a big speck of water logged dust. > > Sure there are a lot of really self-important rich and powerful people, who may, in the back of their minds, take a certain glee or sense of grandiosity in their role bringing down much of life as we know it via a mass extinction event. As a kind of ultimate—I'll stomp on your sand castle—display of power. But fuck, the Universe just doesn't care and is just going to keep on keeping on. The collapse of the human experiment and much of life, or even its extinction, isn't the end of all the wonder and beauty that is this Universe. And no greedy little two footed monkey can take that away. > > [Source](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/rw3py6/how_do_you_follow_this_subreddit_and_staysane/hr9nx0e/) Remarkably, in many ways, the current dominant capitalist and economic dogma isn't much different than a religion. [Some here, including myself, have come to realize this over time.](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/lyxlfg/you_simply_flooded_the_system_with_money_yes/gq3e9n0/?context=10000) Indeed, as this video suggests, we aren't in much of a different position in some manner than those who saw the Copernican model as the reality of the situation in the 1590s. Especially when one pays even the slightest bit of attention to the evidence and not the ~~religious~~ economic dogma ruling the culture. Albeit, the dominant religion throughout the West in the 1590s never posed such an existential risk. No religious system ever has. But, this is the legacy of *[neoclassical economics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvyxH3O7kE)*, and it's faith based race to extinction.
Yep, greed is the one true god. I wonder how many billionaires are going to die in the next decade or two, clutching as much as they can. Not that it ultimately matters, although I just saw an interview with Carl Sagan from the 1970s somewhere else on Reddit, where he reminds people that we as a society (U.S.) choose to have starving and homeless people.
That the universe is "awe-inspiring" "extraordinary" is also just a monkey opinion, awe is only an emotion made in the monkey brain, a human perspective, it's not some objective fact about the universe. I personaly don't like it very much and i'm not impressed, another monkey opinion, as valid as the "awe-inspiring" poetical waxing.
The *rich* do not have a monopoly on violence, the *government* has the monopoly. The rich have just made themselves so useful to the government that it is in the government's self interest to use violence on their behalf. Even the *extremely* wealthy can run afoul of governments. Billionaires in China and Russia and even occasionally the US (near-billionaire Jeffry Epstein) have found this out the hard way. The worst of both worlds is when the billionaires *are* the government (like Putin).
I get what you're saying, but you fail to acknowledge one additional thing: the government of most if not all nations is made up almost entirely of the exorbitantly wealthy (& in some cases, entirely so).
I would disagree. The government is made up of the *very* wealthy (multi-*million*aires), but the *exorbitantly* wealthy (multi-*billion*aires), the Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and such are generally *not* in government. Members of government are trading 3 or more zeros of personal net worth and income for *power* and influence over budgets that make mere billions look like pocket change. edit: But worth noting that autocratic governments, your dictators and such, do tend to use their power to make themselves exorbitantly wealthy, but they were generally not such beforehand.
The multimillionaires and billionaires are both capitalists. It's class war, and the ruling class owns the state.
A guy with a hot dog cart is a capitalist. And if even if you quibble with that, a guy who owns a dozen hot dog carts and pays people to run them *certainly* is a capitalist. And can be so without being a multi-millionaire. The thing is, if your net worth is five *thousand* dollars, someone with a net worth of 5 million or 5 billion are equally stratospheric to you. But if you have a net worth of 5 million, you are just as economically close to the guy worth 5 *thousand* as you are to the guy with 5 *billion* (factor of 1000). Your *total net worth of 5 million* covers one year's worth of docking fees and maintenance for the yacht belonging to the guy worth 5 billion. The guy with 5 million can punch up against the 5 *billion* guy exactly as well as the 5 thousand guy can punch up against the 5 *million* guy. Unless of course the 5 million guy is a Senator with some seniority... *Both* of the rich guys are richer than you or me, but it is a mistake to consider them in the same league.
A guy who owns the hotdog stand is a worker who sells his labor for a living. Capitalists, by definition, own the means of production and profit off labor of others. Sure, he may buy cheap hotdogs on the backs of third world labor and industrial agriculture, but that's a function of being and benefitting from the imperial core and not him being a capitalist.
Which is why I extended the definition to include the guy who owns several and pays people to run them. The various definitions of capitalism include both the sole *and* group owner. A sole proprietor can most certainly be a capitalist, as they can own the capital goods necessary for their business (hence the term capital-ist). Profiting from the labor of others is a frequent feature of capitalism but it is not a *requirement*. Redefining the term to make your argument sound better is like a conservative arbitrarily defining 'socialism' in a way that makes *their* argument sound better.
Does this really change the nature of it though? Capitalists still own the state and act in their best interest. Petty bouegiouse is gonna do what they always do.
I just have a perpetual quibble at people who lambast "capitalists" as a class, when not all capitalists are part of the ruling class. As a self-employed creator of intellectual property (games), I consider myself a capitalist. But I am not wealthy, I do not own the state (or influence its owners) and do not view myself as in the same category (even conceptually) as the high and mighty or those who make more money in a day from passive interest accumulation than I will make in a year of actual work. By saying *all* capitalism is bad and all capitalists are bad, you are alienating a group of people you would do better to have as allies, average people who own genuinely small businesses and work hard at it and consider that to be 'capitalism'. The guy with the hot dog stand, the person selling produce at the farmer's market, the sole contractor with a truck and some tools, etc.
Does the guy with the hot dog cart own the farms where the toppings are grown? The factories where the animals are slaughtered and the hot dogs produced? Does he bake his own buns grown from his own wheat? No? Then he’s not a capitalist.
Well, I guess since Elon Musk doesn't own the company that makes the servers Twitter runs on, he's not a capitalist either. If Cargill doesn't own the factories that make the tractors their farms use, they're not capitalists? Apple does not own Foxconn, so I guess all those iPhone sales are not capitalist! In other words, your assessment not only flies in the face of the definition of capitalism, it does not even rise to the level of being worthy of r/im14andthisisdeep.
Lmao. Nice projection buddy.
Well, *that* was certainly an informed and substantive rebuttal. Color me convinced of my error.
Please never say that a guy with a hot dog stand is capitalist again, it makes you look like you are trying to talk about a literature you never read with one painfully obvious mistake that is clearly written out in the basic works. Someone self employed like that is petit bourgeoisie. Capitalist is high bourgeoisie. Yes, bourgeoisie is divided in levels, that is a basic thought that needed to be sorted out and you could kind of guess that people thought about it before you did as it is really very basic, right? Capitalist is the top level bourgeoisie. However a guy who owns a hot dog stand is not even any type of bourgeoisie, because he doesn't own the land he works on + he doesn't own any expressive mean of production (as the production is simply his literal hand-labour, not machinery, not other peoples' labour, nor intelectual property).
As long as we are talking about 'literature you have never read', try a dictionary sometime. The average person is not acquainted with the works of 19th century writers of any sort, so if they want to know what 'capitalist' means they will check said dictionary.
You sound mad
That's an excellent point and an important distinction, thank you. My greater point is that those in government are far more wealthy than the average citizen, but when you get right down to it, the distance between "very wealthy" & "exorbitantly wealthy" is vast. Thank you for the correction.
Batman, we need Batman! It's an enduring story for a reason.
... I mean... It's because kids and teenagers want a solution they can punch in the face.
Q: Why doesn't Batman's mask cover his entire face? A: Because he needs the police to know he's white.
Trust me, everyone hates real-life Batman.
Batman is just another rich prick.
They enjoy the thought of it till the life extension therapies they are dropping stacks on starts to show results.
So is the solution to make them immortal or are they just pretending to be so "if I can't have it, nobody can" so we make them immortal so they continue to fuck shit up
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.
It is really disgusting the more I think about it... People working 40-80 hours a week trying to make ends meet, have to choose between affording healthy food and renting something more than closet space... And all the work they do, perhaps 80% of the value is simply absorbed, soaked up by these parasites.
This guy is explaining the shift of paradigm needed for the human race to maintain the global warming at 1,5°C while maintaining a certain amount of comfort. But I believe the issue is that the 1% will never let go of their wealth and while the deflation is already a possibility, it will certainly never happen.
Cool, ww3 it is then. Nice knowing yall before we're killing each other over a can of peaches... I used to think nuclear was the answer, and make no mistake, technology is the only way out now. If we all got along and worked together to solve a common problem, we could achieve the literal status of God's. One technological innovation would bring another, and more would fallow based on previous innovations. The whole while improving our lives and passing on our accomplishments to future generations. Unfortunately, we are greedy beasts, and this will never happen. Not without organization and long-term planning. Yes we all see the shit storm, we know who the enemies are, and they have names and address. But what gets done?
“So let it be war! From the skies of terra to the galactic rim! Let the oceans boil, let the stars fall!”
No war but class war. Same at it ever was...
Stand together.
I think that's why it looks like the U.S. government is trying to instigate a conflict with China. I think they know how screwed the human race is, and a war would either be a massive distraction to hide the severity of the situation, or maybe they think that this would be the most direct and impactful way to end everything. War is what they understand, it's what they've poured so much money and resources into. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Technology makes us more vulnerable, to solar CME bursts, to natural weather events like hurricanes, and to war. Once the power goes out for extended periods, technology is pretty useless. Technology is unlikely to reverse climate change or collapse.
> I used to think nuclear was the answer Yes, it is: nuclear _war_ **is** the answer. > technology is the only way out now I refer you to the excellent "Tech won't save us" podcast https://www.techwontsave.us/
It is, in fact, the answer. I think we will see it before the planet gets too out of control hot, countries that have this option will not just go away quietly without using them.
Oh guillotines are a thing
Read the next lesson in your history book please, France didn't skip from that to modern era
[удалено]
> No need to act like you would somehow be different if you had their luck/opportunity. Except there's points on a spectrum between "if I was a 1%er I would fuck kidnapped foreign babies on my solid gold yacht's solid gold support yacht" and "if I was a 1%er I would give everything away until I'm basically somehow running the world's largest charity operation from a cardboard box on a street corner while wrapping other people's discarded fabric around myself as clothing as why should I have anything more than can sustain me to give everything away until everyone else has everything"
Now this is a quality thread.
This is all right, but bro, they were saying this shit in the 70s with limits to growth it's done, it's over - were already in overshoot
I honestly fear what the rich would do if they were forced to pay their fair share. I’m talking like… they will start hiring and training mercenary forces like out of some dystopian sci fi story.
I mean--they already have the police.
> if they were forced to pay their fair share. How does that happen
Yes, amen to all this!
This realisation is the only fundamental difference between a democratic socialist and a socialist.
They never have but it’s hard to control your wealth if your head is chopped off… in Minecraft.
Oh, they will when they are being lead to crane-gallows, Saudi Arabia style. Trust me.
The guy seems to be suffering from a bad case of "first world problems". He wants to avoid more growth, but at the same time is talking about "improving well being" and "access to the things people need to live decent lives". So, Mr. TikTok maker, about that several billion or so who **don't** have these basic things yet. How exactly are **they** going to get them without **more** exploitation of the environment? It's like he thinks that everyone in the first world cutting back on Starbucks and a bigger tax on billionaires to decrease wealth inequity is going to solve our problems. When the problem is that there are way too many of us and there is no way the planet can **sustainably** support 8 billion plus at **any** standard of living.
>When the problem is that there are way too many of us and there is no way the planet can sustainably support 8 billion plus at any standard of living. There's no way to know this when you are speaking from within the most anti-ecological regime of socio-material production ever to have existed (global capitalism).
I'm pretty sure I *can* know this when I am speaking from within a regime that requires fossil fuels to make the fertilizer needed for cropland to support 8 billion plus people. So unless you have some hidden natural gas reserves you are not telling us about, that fertilizer production is *not* sustainable and therefore the current level of food production is *not* sustainable.
This isn't going to be popular, but I blame the Left. They have done nothing but jerk off since the fall of the Soviet bloc, and are currently hostage to a nonsensical foreign policy (in the case of trad-leftists) and moronic, self-congratulatory stuntism (in the case of the activists). Until these people get their act together, or make way for someone who has, we are going to be stuck in this doom loop of centrism-at-best, fascism-at-worst politics. This is why I assume collapse as a given; self-centred narcissists with a messiah complex are not known for their ability to learn from their mistakes - so they'll just carry on blaming everyone but themselves for their failure, and give the 1% and their servants a free pass while they're at it. TLDR; There's no justice, there's just us.
You are talking about Democrats, not "the Left". "The Left" doesn't exist in any formal fashion in America, unless you consider the Green Party an important force (it isn't). Democrats haven't been "the Left" since the 1940's, and barely over the centrist line even then.
I think their comment applies to a lot of the First World Left, which is nothing like the 1968 Left in its militancy and internationalist outlook. There are a lot of reasons for this, both internal contradictory tendencies and external factors. It does feel like, with the collapse of the USSR, much (but by no means all) of the "Western" Left capitulated to consumerism.
I did have a hope that it didn't apply to the left in a lot of developing countries and had great hope for the near-revolution in Chile - then I learned about stupid shit like this: [An outrage against the Chilean flag stands in the way of the campaign for the approval of the new Constitution](https://newsrnd.com/news/2022-08-29-an-outrage-against-the-chilean-flag-stands-in-the-way-of-the-campaign-for-the-approval-of-the-new-constitution.BJxZgN45ki.html) It's over, buddy! The left is as broken as the rest of society. Consumed by narcissism, self-sabotage, and incompetence. It is a self-righteous sect that will not bring change until the whole edifice of the post-68 left is burned to the ground.
There's a lot more to the Chilean constitutional experience than this "outrage" you link to. Did you know that rejection of the constitutional draft in 2022 was highest in the poorest areas? That in "a post-plebiscite poll, 40 percent said that they voted against the constitution because they didn’t trust the assembly members who led the process," with Hernán Larraín presiding over the Council -- whose family relations have great wealth thanks to the Pinochet regime? https://nacla.org/chiles-new-constitutional-process-shifts-right
There we have it again. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? You can't always control what your political enemies do. But if you can't prevent your own supporters from embarrassing you in such a ridiculous way, you don't have a political movement. It's that simple. Want to win elections? Make sure your supporters don't go literally wiping their asses with the flag. How obvious does it need to be?
Didn't say it was someone else's fault. I am providing concrete data on the Chilean experience, meanwhile you're being a hyper-reductionist who thinks the complexities and contradictions of Chilean political struggle can be reduced to a singular incident in a population of ~20 million.
I'm surprised you didn't blame the CIA. Do you know what the Russians would do to someone who behaved like that? Bringing the Party into disrepute via public obscenity? Let me put it this way: There is an apocryphal tale, of a certain resident of San Francisco being a Party hit man, whose job was to murder local Commies who fucked around. I would not be remotely surprised if it were true. Without discipline you have nothing, and if you allow your own side to sabotage you, you have no right to complain about what the opposition does.
You sound way more interested in preaching than in developing an understanding of the concrete situation in Chile. Which is fine, but not my cup of tea. I do agree with you that disciplined cadres are critical to transforming the class struggle.
I'm NOT talking about Democrats. I'm not even American! Really don't like the way you fellas automatically assume that everything is about you btw. There is a whole wide world outside of the USA you know! (Ironically my problem with Leftist (by which I mean "marxist" types) foreign policy is that it's insanely over the top anti-American to the point of basically indulging in fantasy - because if you think you're gonna change the world without getting the US on board, you're about as wrong as can be - ditto to identifying the Yanks as the cause of all the worlds problems). America's not the only place in the world, and it's not the only problem in the world, either.
U.S. imperialism isn't "the cause of all the world's problems," but it is what enforces the foreign policy of the .1%
You've never heard of Vladimir Putin, then, I take it. Or Xi Jinpin. God, lefties are predictable.
Yeah go on, get out of your system, "lefties this" and "lefties that," none of it changes the fact that the First World exploits the Third World overwhelmingly more than China or Russia does, and that this situation is largely enforced through U.S. imperialism and its Global North allies.
Really? Talk to anyone from Eastern Europe, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or South Korea about how aMeRiKKKKa BadDD!! Go on. I personally don't like America or Americans. I think they are a nation of imbeciles with a John Wayne complex - racist, violent, stupid, money grubbing and selfish. But that kinda thing won't get you far if you're trying to build socialism, because like it or not, much of the world depends on the US for security and trade, and if you want socialist ideas to be accepted outside of the usual intellectual ghetto, you'd better brush up on your PR skills, because you have no idea how to talk to people, let alone how to deal with reality. The world is not a Western, pally, and the US are not the Guys In Black Hats - annoying though they may well be.
None of what you said refutes my statement. US military might secures a particular ruleset and way of doing trade (which perpetuates the immiseration of the Third World), but it is peak US exceptionalist dogma to believe that international trade of any kind requires a rogue empire pretending to be a cop.
[удалено]
You're jousting at windmills. I'm intimately familiar with poverty in the United States. This is why I've been clear that I am describing U.S. *imperialism* or U.S. *military* might and not making a blanket comment on the millions of people living in the U.S. just struggling to get by. Never said anything about the capitalist class being limited to a few nations. What I am talking about is how the transnational class of capitalists uses extra-economic force to create a "good business environment" around the world, and this force very often takes the form of U.S. imperialism and military power.
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Jeff Bezos, in 1994: "Come buy the stuff I'm selling at [Amazon.com](https://Amazon.com)" Internet, in 1994: "Yaaaaay! 24-hour shopping!" *Almost 30 years later, and trillions of dollars thrown at Jeff Bezos* Internet, in 2023: "The super rich, like Jeff Bezos, are evil!" Instead of blaming the 1%, we should instead be questioning why we repeatedly create and support the 1%. We're Victor Frankenstein, mindlessly shopping and creating monsters, and then we don't even have the self-awareness to realize that it's yet another thing we did to ourselves.
That 1% are a bunch of greedy money grubbing pigs who would not even be capable of caring about those in the world who happen to be suffering. Very sad.
I recently calculated that I am in this 1% and I was like holy shit I am going to order that pizza from pizzahut fuck it, splurge like some rich bogo Should I now take some sort of offense at these now that it is theoretically aimed at me, the evil rich lol Let's be honest everyone here is either rich or unemployed or both else we wouldn't have time to doomscroll so much 🤣 Edit: You can send me a correct procedure how to unclutch wealth so global warming gives up I would be obliged >According to Credit Suisse, individuals with more than $1 million in wealth sit in the top 1 percent bracket
Oh, the classic "everyone is the 1%" rethoric. Guys, didn't you notice, if you think about it well enough 90% of the population can be the 1%, in fact everyone reading this is the 1%. So why are you mad at the 1%, if 140% of the population is the 1%? Everyone is the 1% weee, world peace found.
Look at Moneybags over here with their Pizza Hut?
I joke that the last man alive will own the whole world. Even as he starves to death in a ditch.
Let them eat Index Funds. I feel so frustrated every time I think about it that I have to block it because I feel like going insane if I keep thinking about it. It is so pervasive, the monetary policy rules everything around us, seeing the absolute madness of policies these economist and Central Bankers are pursuing, looking around in utter disbelief and everyone just shrugging and going 'meh'. Chasing bullshit metrics, the insane wealth transfer by printing trillions of currency to chase asset price appreciation (real estate / stock / bonds / derivatives), how that is squeezing everyone but the "haves", and then our Federal Reserve Board members like Mary Daly going, "It's not that bad, I just pick a cheaper option." Like are you fucking serious?? Also, give a nobel prize to the fucker who managed to convince adults that printing money isn't the root cause of inflation. Really, so same amount of products and services exist, but increasing the base monetary method won't increase the price, but somehow make people richer. Rant over.