The more you attempt to shift to revolution, the more you counteract real meaningful change. There are market solutions to this problem and it’s called government regulation.
You have an idea about a market solution to the problem, and then act like you’ve solved the problem.
The problem isn’t a lack of ideas! The problem is a lack of implementation! You have to get these ideas into the real world somehow, and revolution is the only way you can do that. There are billionaires aligned against implementing these ideas. You have to stop them.
Revolution is also more than eating the rich. Its also setting a framework for the future through non-violent action. Organizing and interacting both with local communities and national and international concerns.
Making unrelated enemies is a quick way to burn any changes at the starting gate. The right doesn’t need you existing to point to with their narrative but it sure does help it resonate with average people.
They’re the peasants that revolt against their local lord while still being loyal to the king, because surely the problem is just that the king has bad advisors and the local lord is corrupt!
It’s not idealism. If you have a better solution that is not radical by design, go ahead. I was literally not specific intentionally. Go ahead, what instrument within the current system would work that are not regulations?
Regulations don’t work when they don’t get implemented, which means your ideas are purely ideas and not materialistic solutions. There aren’t going to be any regulations, don’t you get it? That ship has so obviously sailed.
There isn’t a better solution that’s not radical and that’s why radical solutions all that’s left!
We’ll, changes won’t work on your system if they don’t get implemented either. If your system is a catch-all for forcing through unpopular changes, don’t expect to see much success. We have implemented comprehensive environmental changes in the past but it takes time and ground work.
There will be people who thought it was successful, and people who thought it was unsuccessful, in every revolution. You’d need to clarify who ‘they’ are.
And as for me, I’m not sure there’s anything we can do about this, even with a revolution - at least with such a small number of us that actually care. If the majority actually wanted to change from the status quo, maybe then a revolution could work.
Well, I mean, historically, the USA had a very successful revolution in that they have become the greatest world power nowadays…
Even if they are a capitalist crazed two party nation, where a majority struggle to survive and they have to pay for the basic human right of healthcare, all in the name of some “free market” to help the rich get richer at their own expense.
In the conversation on which successful country to emulate. I think the point is that one doesn’t exist that’s been successful. It’s a societal filter.
Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn’t make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You’re relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that’s a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you’re effectively no different than them.
You’ll sit here and argue that you’re right till you’re blue in the face but you’ll still never change anything.
Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s why we killed the Nazi’s instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You’re the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it’s a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
I hate to break this to you, but these have to go hand in hand.
Government, and the individuals who make up the government, are balancing a lot of competing demands.
Until one of those demands may include the loss of use of their property, at the very least, then they will always be more incentived to overvalue the perspective of the rich. And the rich will literally say, yeah, it’s bad, but we can slap a bandaid on it - 20% or the cost for 40% of the solution, that should get us by!
Some other overwhelming force will eventually be necessary to change the calculus of what an “acceptable solution” looks like. Because with your market regulation, you will always have people willing to pay the fine instead of following the rules, and if they are allowed to continue externalizing those costs to the rest of us, we will continue to have less room to request less benefit, and we will have to take what they decide to give us. Which I can almost guarantee will be pennies compared to what it costs us in the meantime.
The more you attempt to shift to revolution, the more you counteract real meaningful change. There are market solutions to this problem and it’s called government regulation.
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/40/bf/b6/40bfb6a76627032773450ddee967be36.jpg
Successful revolution and war will not help global warming. Failure will result in a massive social shift against these ends.
This is literally idealism.
You have an idea about a market solution to the problem, and then act like you’ve solved the problem.
The problem isn’t a lack of ideas! The problem is a lack of implementation! You have to get these ideas into the real world somehow, and revolution is the only way you can do that. There are billionaires aligned against implementing these ideas. You have to stop them.
Revolution is also more than eating the rich. Its also setting a framework for the future through non-violent action. Organizing and interacting both with local communities and national and international concerns.
When the rich send men with guns to break up your non-violent organizations and communities, you aren’t going to debate them into submission.
So we all burn while you try to change the system instead of focusing on the problem at hand. Great and thanks.
Did I say that was the only thing?
Because if you ignore this now to burn down the rich, you’ll be burning later anyways.
Making unrelated enemies is a quick way to burn any changes at the starting gate. The right doesn’t need you existing to point to with their narrative but it sure does help it resonate with average people.
Its over man, I just look at those sad little true believers as pathetic comic relief.
They’d be the ones in the town squares pre-revolution scolding passers by for not blindly following the wisdom of their oppressive monarchs.
“Stay the course! So I can feel like I’m safe and that everything is working as it’s supposed to!”
They’re the peasants that revolt against their local lord while still being loyal to the king, because surely the problem is just that the king has bad advisors and the local lord is corrupt!
They’re the voters stupid enough to vote against their interests, and there’s no shortage of them. Serfs gonna serf.
It’s not idealism. If you have a better solution that is not radical by design, go ahead. I was literally not specific intentionally. Go ahead, what instrument within the current system would work that are not regulations?
Regulations don’t work when they don’t get implemented, which means your ideas are purely ideas and not materialistic solutions. There aren’t going to be any regulations, don’t you get it? That ship has so obviously sailed.
There isn’t a better solution that’s not radical and that’s why radical solutions all that’s left!
We’ll, changes won’t work on your system if they don’t get implemented either. If your system is a catch-all for forcing through unpopular changes, don’t expect to see much success. We have implemented comprehensive environmental changes in the past but it takes time and ground work.
Which country is the model to emulate? Which country has had the successful revolution?
Many countries have successfully overthrown previous governments and implemented new ones. It depends what you mean by ‘successful’.
I’m asking which ones did it by their definition of successful. Which country should we emulate?
There will be people who thought it was successful, and people who thought it was unsuccessful, in every revolution. You’d need to clarify who ‘they’ are.
I asked a specific person, @queermunist, which country we should emulate. @queermunist, which country should we emulate?
I await their response.
And as for me, I’m not sure there’s anything we can do about this, even with a revolution - at least with such a small number of us that actually care. If the majority actually wanted to change from the status quo, maybe then a revolution could work.
Well, I mean, historically, the USA had a very successful revolution in that they have become the greatest world power nowadays…
Even if they are a capitalist crazed two party nation, where a majority struggle to survive and they have to pay for the basic human right of healthcare, all in the name of some “free market” to help the rich get richer at their own expense.
So, you are saying we should emulate the United States? Are you following this conversation?
That’s not what I said. I gave an example of a “successful” revolution.
In the conversation on which successful country to emulate. I think the point is that one doesn’t exist that’s been successful. It’s a societal filter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-inside-luxury-bunkers-ultra-rich-prepare-for-doomsday-2022-9
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn’t make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You’re relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that’s a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you’re effectively no different than them.
You’ll sit here and argue that you’re right till you’re blue in the face but you’ll still never change anything.
Well, I’m sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.
Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s why we killed the Nazi’s instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You’re the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it’s a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
Yep, that’s how they got elected. You’re doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I’m not an apologist, you are an enabler.
No, you’re both.
Explain how I’m enabling climate denialism by saying we ignore climate denialists?
And how are you not the apologist for defending their indefensible position?
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.
At no point did I defend them. That’s a strawman.
Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.
I hate to break this to you, but these have to go hand in hand.
Government, and the individuals who make up the government, are balancing a lot of competing demands.
Until one of those demands may include the loss of use of their property, at the very least, then they will always be more incentived to overvalue the perspective of the rich. And the rich will literally say, yeah, it’s bad, but we can slap a bandaid on it - 20% or the cost for 40% of the solution, that should get us by!
Some other overwhelming force will eventually be necessary to change the calculus of what an “acceptable solution” looks like. Because with your market regulation, you will always have people willing to pay the fine instead of following the rules, and if they are allowed to continue externalizing those costs to the rest of us, we will continue to have less room to request less benefit, and we will have to take what they decide to give us. Which I can almost guarantee will be pennies compared to what it costs us in the meantime.