I think of it like this:

Lacking fundamental critique of the political economy, they believe the liberal narrative of the market and democratic institutions would bring about a fair or good economy.

Either you stop believing that, wich comes with quite a reorientation towards your own society, history and biography with significant social consequences ("what are you, a socialist now?) and mental stress (radical opposition is not exactly calming).

…or you assume there is something disturbing your otherwise functioning order and ideology from the outside. Damn those immigrants, if it it wasn’t for them there would be more jobs, higher wages, less crime and I’d finally get all that trickle down.

This latter is the energetically more efficient choice for each individual, and importantly, this really is true - as long as there is no collective perspective of systemic change, wich of course in turn only materializes when people make their bet for the possible, not the actual.

This perspective doesn’t really exist atm, it’s not in sight and nobody talks about it. This is the result of anticommunism and a massive failure of the left.

We need to be couragous and make room for utopian thought while giving opportunities to experience and try solidaric socialization. This makes not being idiot a convincing alternative.

… nach ab kommt Arbeit

… after off work follows

Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

Lots of points for gryffindor

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.

Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity

Whats going on ITT?

You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.

Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works

This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)

Haha yeah I was about to say, this is a masterpiece of

*newspaper jumping on the absolutely least significant aspect of smth, just, and really for no other fucking reason, because it activates low stakes unambiguous morals

*everyone: preaching low stakes morals

Wel played everyone, you’ve won the simulator. Turns out you do have a message, you do tell the truth

100k drones a month?!

This is a surprisingly hight number :o. Then again saying this already feels stupid since the answer is probaby just industrial warfare or smth.

Never too late for a first time

The fight for hegemony is always a cultural one. Cultural workers positioning themselves in political conflicts, IS struggle for ethical-moral leadership. Here society fights out what interpretation of the social world is leading, and thus on the long run, which political alliance will be able to lead society.

Oh god please no, please don’t escalate this war by adding the killer kind of weapons to it

If you seek emancipation of anyone or anything by critique, you should read up what others wrote down, that had or have the same goal.

Otherwise your are individualistically and egoistically sabotaging the very project you want to contribute to.

Saying the most edgy thing to feel yourself “being on the right side” will not do good to anyone except yourself.

I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.

In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.

This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.

Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.

Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.

That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.

Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.

The magic about collective action is that the everyday-normal-coorperation of humans comes up with solutions for everyone. The pointer to individual decision-making in lack of collective action thus doesn’t work as a measure of how serious people are.

Also seen in episodes like

“Oh, you are wearing shoes made under unfair conditions?!”

And

“Oh there is fossil fuel in your energy consumption?”

Or

“Oh if you like democracy so much, why do you exist in a not-so-democratic-country?”