There is a finger on the scale though. Youre underestimating its weight. When we disagree on the “left” having money and sharing stuff, etc, i think we actually just disagree on who is the left. In my view, the left is probably a smaller group than in your view. This smaller group i consider left doesnt have much money, and does get a diminished voice in social media despite engaging a lot (relative to its demographic proportion).
I asked which approach requires more money, not who has more. You said the left doesnt want to spend that money, ok. Maybe the mass of liberals collectively has more money, maybe. Not the left though. And the network cooperation part? Which agendas are being priviledged by the recomendation algorithms in social medias?
To be fair, whats the point of banging you head against the wall again? The co crete wall is a solid choice there
Which approach do you think requires more money and cooperation from the network management?
If people receive low wages to do a job that no one wants to do, sorry but it isnt a great country.
Besides, the search from klauncher should probably show kalendar if i type calendar, its a bit annoying to have to remember these alternative spellings
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
By economic growth i mean more production. This production can be marketable but not represent an actual wealth gain. If i produce a shitty headphone that breaks in a week of use, the world would be better off without it, but it did contribute to the growth of the economy when i sold it to some unfortunate soul. In this sense, a reduction in production may not really represent a reduction in wealth globally. A better production can have a way smaller volume than the current global production while still giving us more actual wealth to live with. Thats why i say economic growth is not quality of life. Of course theres a correlation in the actual data today, but my point is that this correlation is not necessary, its an empirical correlation, not a logical one, and it is something that may change in the future.
If we cant dissociate economic growth from well being, then i take your point and agree with it.
Regarding UBI, if it is done in a way that emancipates people, instead of just enabling and maintaining conditions for enslaving people, great. And from my perspective this would probably also entail a spontaneous degrowth.
I think our views are compatible. Im not defending a forced degrowth nor hope that people do it voluntarily out of nowhere. But political measures to redistribute wealth and improve living standards, like what you envision with UBI, could lead to a natural and widely accepted degrowth, which would be positive.
I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.
i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.
The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.
A degrowth can be in consumption rather than population. We could use less plastic, less gas,…a lot less
It does have autodelete, dont remember of its the default, but i think it explicitly offers you the option when you set it up
then you cant use your own wifi. Besides a jammer you need to use cable internet only.
Secret ballots are really important. There should be an effort into making in person voting more accessible and ending postal voting imo. Not american though, but i know my country historically had a very big problem of people being coerced to vote for certain candidates. The vote now is secret, spreaded all around the country and public transportation is free on voting days, which are on weekends.
Why? You think they don’t do lobbying? Their cartels do constitute monopolies in my view
Right, not every firm is a monopoly. Bribing politicians is a necessary maintenance cost of keeping a monopoly. We agree.
You cant “cure” hunger, you have to keep eating
Of course. Im just saying i dont believe theyre scared because they know they will continue to have more than enough money for lobbying. Its probably very cheap in comparison to what they get out if it. Any business has necessary maintenance costs
I dont know if that indicates that theyre scared, its just part of the maintenance cost of their empires
Sure. I dont want to demonize people that arent left. Theres a portion of those that align with us on certain topic, some are apathic, and some are also violently against us.
Sure I may be taken by propaganda sometimes. Its not easy to tell. But focusing on specific issues helps clear that a bit. Someone that calls themselves “left” but doesnt believe in a completely socialized healthcare system, do they really have a leftist view on this topic? Im all for joining forces for some cause, but are the wealthy “leftists” really for, or against, inheritance taxes, socialized healthcare, …?
Besides, this doesnt touch on the issues of social networks priviledging certain political positions. If you look at instagram, most posts that appear are recomendations of the network to the specific user, rather than posts of who they follow. The interface pushes you off of what you intended to see and into a personalised recomendations playlist. Demobilizing “progressive” content à la us Democrat party gets normal reach in those platforms, while actual mobilizing content gets reduced reach.