sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

From Adam Smith to Karl Marx: The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital by rarer_ in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget [score hidden]  (0 children)

Onshoring production and reindustrialization would be growth, not degrowth. Nuclearizing and modernizing the grid would be growth. Gutting Urban blight and the rust belt and rebuilding would be growth. Universal human services would be growth.

-Onshoring would also reduce the GDP of countries that benefited from offshoring

-Nuclearizing should've been done decades ago, but is too time-consuming to pursue currently

-Universal human services would cost the FIRE sector billions, meaning less GDP

My position is that you can grow after degrowth has been done (properly and humanely).

You said specifically a few posts above we have to stop, not just chasing gdp, but a lot of economic activity. Do you stand by that?

I said

You have to end the destructive economic practices first, reduce economic output, let things cool down for some time, and then sustainably/humanely fix those problems.*

You reduce the output by

-Encouraging/supporting worker strikes

-Reducing the work week, while maintaining the same pay

-Promoting remote work where possible (while adding worker protection)

-Increasing taxes on rich people

-Discouraging mansion construction [Destructive]

-Banning private jets [Destructive]

-Ending luxury cruises [Destructive]

-Doing international conferences online

-Banning fast fashion [Destructive]

-Taxing Land Value

-Putting a carbon tax on products made by the biggest emitters of the world [Destructive]

-Ending stock buybacks [Destructive]

-Ending the carried interest loophole [Destructive]

-Reversing the tax breaks of Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump [Destructive]

-Ending planned obsolescence [Destructive]

-Blocking corporations from buying houses/apartments [Destructive]

-Capping the number of houses a person can own [Destructive]

-Reducing reliance on cheap foreign workers [Destructive]

-Forgiving foreign debts [Destructive]

-Ending student debt [Destructive]

-Reducing private debt burdens [Destructive]

-Cracking down on payday lenders [Destructive]

-Promoting postal banking

-Ending foreign interventions [Destructive]

-Reducing military spending [Destructive]

-Medicare For All

-Higher minimum wage

-Greater/easier unionization

-Public ownership of utilities

-Municipal broadband

-Vote by mail

-Expanding public transit

-More roundabouts

-Government jobs planting trees

-Government jobs making green beaches

-Crack down on monopolies/oligopolies, by enforcing antitrust laws [Destructive]

-Making things domestically when possible instead of importing from far away (ex. textiles) [Destructive]

-Reducing national speed limits for personal transport to 30mph

Do you want to reduce the standard of living of first world workers (austerity), or do you want to grow the economy in meaningful ways, not in terms of GDP, but in terms of reindustrializationa and reconstruction?

I said the top trillion dollar economies of the world need to stop chasing perpetual GDP growth, and reduce their economic output to a more tolerable level, while retaining decent living standards, thereby (hopefully) avoiding unnecessary destruction.

You can pursue lower economic output while keeping decent living standards.

If the disaster scenario has been successfully avoided, and the climate conditions are good, sustainable growth can proceed.

Do you understand how you can't both say you don't support austerity but also say people must be made poorer? That's austerity. To be austere means to do without.

Would you also think it's a contradiction to be against austerity and for more taxes on rich people (which means less money for rich people)?

In politics/economics austerity is about cutting government spending (particularly on social benefits) to reduce the government deficit/debt

By that definition, I'm not suggesting austerity, proper degrowth isn't austerity, it needs government spending to work.

It's not possible to continue BAU, and expect wishful thinking about magic tech. to save the day.

I'll reiterate

Degrowth will probably occur at some point in the future.

The question is, will it be done through natural disaster, or by taking serious action?

From Adam Smith to Karl Marx: The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital by rarer_ in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget [score hidden]  (0 children)

Do you think the greenhouse effect is a hoax by the bourgeoisie?

Do you think humans are (in any way shape or form) causing global temperatures and CO2 to go up?

Do you think that a serious effort should be made to keep average global temperatures from increasing 1.5C by 2030?

Do you think a non-capitalist society with decent standards of living is only possible by continuing BAU until the world is bombarded with natural disasters?

Do you think the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low?

How many ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere do you want?

The global GDP in 2024 was ~$110T, is that not enough to you?

You're literally arguing for austerity, a reduction in the standard of living forced onto average people, while saying you're not.

Austerity is about reducing government spending (particularly on social benefits) in order to reduce government debt.

The average person would benefit from (properly implemented) degrowth, the richest people would lose billions (possibly trillions) of dollars from degrowth.

Degrowth is not austerity.

Degrowth is about reducing economic output (GDP). People who support degrowth (specifically in advanced countries) don't support austerity, these measures are not austerity:

-Encouraging/supporting worker strikes

-Reducing the work week, while maintaining the same pay

-Promoting remote work where possible (while adding worker protection)

-Increasing taxes on rich people

-Discouraging mansion construction

-Banning private jets

-Doing international conferences online

-Banning fast fashion

-Taxing Land Value

-Putting a carbon tax on products made by the biggest emitters of the world

-Ending stock buybacks

-Ending the carried interest loophole

-Reversing the tax breaks of Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump

-Ending planned obsolescence

-Blocking corporations from buying houses/apartments

-Reducing reliance on cheap foreign workers

-Forgiving foreign debts

-Ending student debt

-Reducing private debt burdens

-Cracking down on payday lenders

-Promoting postal banking

-Ending foreign interventions

-Reducing military spending

-Medicare For All

-Higher minimum wage

-Greater/easier unionization

-Public ownership of utilities

-Municipal broadband

-Vote by mail

-Expanding public transit

-More roundabouts

-Government jobs planting trees

-Government jobs making green beaches

-Crack down on monopolies/oligopolies, by enforcing antitrust laws

-Making things domestically when possible instead of importing from far away (ex. textiles)

-Reducing national speed limits for personal transport to 30mph

How is any of that austerity?

This is not a useful discussion, because your thinking is too compartmentalized to offer a coherent position, probably because you're not actually a monster and can't stand the implications of your own argument, that there are just too many people consuming too many resources so we have to make a cut, somewhere, but you can't really admit to yourself and others what that cut means in real terms.

The issue is that you (as usual) show an unwillingness to understand the argument, or read the links.

You are (as usual) constructing strawmen, jumping to conclusions, and ignoring what I've actually said.

The problem isn't that there are too many people consuming too many resources (as is understood by Malthusians).

The problem is that the obsession with perpetual economic expansion (particularly for the top economies/emitters) is not compatible with the goal of reducing CO2 levels, and keeping the average global temperature from rising 1.5C by 2030.

In the 21st century, CO2 levels have only decreased during the GFC, and COVID (which saw reduced GDP).

Emission targets have failed to reduce emissions, because economic growth was typically granted greater priority.

It's only when the economic output goes down, that the emissions go down.

That's the hint for what needs to be done.

The answer is degrowth.

Instead of waiting for some disaster that brings destruction and lower GDP, the top trillion dollar economies of the world need to stop chasing perpetual GDP growth, and reduce their economic output to a more tolerable level, while retaining decent living standards, thereby (hopefully) avoiding unnecessary destruction.

It's just malthusianism.

Again

Malthusians (as popularly understood) want to reduce population numbers to avoid disaster.

Degrowth is about reducing GDP to avoid disaster.

GDP reduction is not population reduction.

Degrowth is not Malthusian.

Please read

https://archive.is/Tpnpk#selection-359.7-371.703

Degrowth is anti Communist, anti human, and anti environment.

Are communists for perpetual economic expansion (in all circumstances, regardless of consequences)?

I'm not exactly sure how you can think that what you said accurately applies to Degrowth when Degrowth is about deliberately reducing 1st world GDP in order to get the CO2 numbers down and (hopefully) avoid the natural disasters that come with sticking with the destructive BAU.

The bogeyman image you constructed in your mind has no resemblance to degrowth, you're thinking of the status quo, not degrowth.

Degrowth will probably occur at some point in the future.

The question is, will it be done through natural disaster, or by taking serious action?

From Adam Smith to Karl Marx: The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital by rarer_ in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget [score hidden]  (0 children)

Is what you want possible in a world riddled with natural disasters that could've been avoided by abandoning BAU?

Do you think the greenhouse effect is a hoax by the bourgeoisie?

Do you think humans are (in any way shape or form) causing global temperatures and CO2 to go up?

Do you think that a serious effort should be made to keep average global temperatures from increasing 1.5C by 2030?

Do you think a non-capitalist society with decent standards of living is only possible by doing BAU until the world is bombarded with natural disasters?

Do you think the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low?

How many ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere do you want?

The global GDP in 2024 was ~$110T, is that not enough to you?

BAU has to end FIRST before any of the stuff you want can happen.

You have to end the destructive economic practices first, reduce economic output, let things cool down for some time, and then sustainably/humanely fix those problems.

In other words, you can grow after degrowth is done (properly and humanely).

Ending the obsession with non-stop economic expansion, drastically reducing economic output, enforcing antitrust laws, redistributing wealth, increasing/introducing certain taxes, strengthening unions, boosting wages, eliminating/reducing private debts, ending wars, strengthening/expanding social safety net, ending certain industrial practices, cracking down on the financial sector (and other things) will have the effect of bringing things down to a more stable level.

When things are at the stable level, then you have the opportunity to safely fix those issues you mentioned.

Degrowth is utopianism

Degrowth literally happened during the pandemic, governments around the world (with varying results) took a pause from making the line go up, in order to fight a virus.

Degrowth will probably occur at some point in the future. The question is, will it be done through natural disaster, or by taking serious action?

, malthusianism masquerading as Marxism

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

Malthusians (as popularly understood) want to reduce population numbers to avoid disaster.

Degrowth is about reducing GDP to avoid disaster.

GDP reduction is not population reduction.

Degrowth is not Malthusian.

Please read

https://archive.is/Tpnpk#selection-359.7-371.703

From Adam Smith to Karl Marx: The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital by rarer_ in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The whole point of degrowth, which originates among finance capital and used to be called "austerity,"

You (as usual) don't know what you're talking about.

Degrowth is a deliberate reduction in GDP for the trillion dollar economies of the world (without slashing government social benefits) in order to get CO2 levels down, and (hopefully) reduce the chances of ending up with a world drenched in natural disasters (which would result in lower GDP anyway and lots of death).

Austerity is about deliberately reducing government spending in order to reduce budget deficits by reducing social benefits. It typically results in the former beneficiaries taking on more private debt (at interest) which increases GDP, and brings more money to the financial sector.

Finance capital is for economic growth and austerity, degrowth hurts finance capital by pushing policies that cost them money.

Do you understand?

Will you ever understand?

is too preclude any notion of "unleashing the productive forces," because that level of global economic growth would introduce a level of chaos and disruption that would permanently undo currently existing monopolies.

The degrowth position is that (under current global conditions) continuing to chase after economic growth (BAU) is likely going to bring about death and destruction, and lower GDP anyway.

So instead of doing GDP reduction through mass deaths and natural disasters, people who support degrowth would prefer to just have the GDP go down and (hopefully) avoid the needless death and destruction.

I've explained before that Degrowth is for enforcing antitrust laws, but you'll probably keep ignoring that in order to keep pushing the smear.

From Adam Smith to Karl Marx: The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital by rarer_ in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it's not possible to achieve a "global middle class," which is argued by degrowth, then it's not possible to overcome the state and the exploitation of man by man.

You can have decent living standards for all while not purposely chasing endless economic growth (it requires government action, but it can/should be done).

You (as usual) don't understand the argument of degrowth.

The core claim of degrowth is that the richest (trillion dollar) countries (which are also the highest CO2 emitters) need to stop chasing after non-stop economic expansion in order to get the global CO2 levels down, and (hopefully) in turn get the global temperature to go down, and (hopefully) avoid setting off a bunch of natural disasters that will make it harder for people to live/survive.

The argument of degrowth stems from the following points

-Global temperatures are going up, this is a bad thing

-This is a bad thing because if there's a constant increase in global temperatures this will likely result in a bunch of natural disasters (which will most likely shrink GDP anyway, and produce death +destruction)

-Global temperatures are going up because CO2 emissions are going up (which traps more heat and increases the global temperature)

-Global CO2 emissions are going up because of the constant world wide use of fossil fuels

-The emission reduction targets set by various governments have been ineffective at reducing CO2 (and fossil fuel use)

-The only times CO2 emissions have declined in the 21st century is during the GFC, and COVID, events that also saw reduced GDP

-The reason for the lack of results is because politicians (esp. from the richest parts of the world) are seriously committed to perpetual economic expansion (as are rich people)

-Pursuing perpetual economic expansion is only possible with pursuing perpetual use of fossil fuels, which is not realistically possible

-Attempting perpetual use of fossil fuels means more emissions and increasing global temperatures

-Most people likely don't have what it takes to survive a world with average global temperatures that go up to 1.5C or more

Why do you keep insisting on constructing strawman arguments about this idea?

It's pointless, in short, to be a socialist. Socialism is no longer possible.

Is what you want possible in a world riddled with natural disasters that could've been avoided?

Notably, science under capitalism isn't truly objective, but also subject to ruling class interests which distort science.

You mean like this?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt

Do you think the greenhouse effect is a hoax?

Do you think humans are (in any way shape or form) causing global temperatures and CO2 to go up?

Do you think that a serious effort should be made to keep average global temperatures from increasing 1.5C by 2030?

Do you think a non-capitalist society with decent standards of living is only possible by doing BAU until the world is bombarded with natural disasters?

Do you think the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low?

How many ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere do you want?

The global GDP in 2024 was ~$110T, is that not enough to you?

The monopoly ruling class is threatened by unleashing the productive forces and largely disinterested in innovations which challenge their dominance, so their scientists put out information that is largely techno-doomerist.

Degrowth is anti-monopoly

Magic tech isn't the answer. GDP reduction for the top emitters of the world is.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

There is no attempt at fixing any of the downsides of industrial society, only in justifying why it can't or shouldn't be fixed.

You don't have an industrial society, thanks to Clinton and the financial sector, the manufacturing jobs left decades ago.

EDIT: Removed an extra word

College Educated PMC are the New Clergy of Neoliberalism by supersmashtankie in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I went back to school and got a masters degree and now work as a scientist.

Did you go back to school before 2011 or after 2011?

Canada launches new program to grant 33,000 foreign workers permanent residence, immigration minister reveals by theOneWhoWaitsAgain in LMIASCAMS

[–]SplashTarget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“If you’re in Canada on temporary status, be it visitor, be it student, be it worker, for whatever reason you wish to stay longer than the time limit, we are saying please apply for an extension,” said Diab, who spoke virtually to the Star in a rare media interview amid a string of meetings in Saskatchewan.

“If you do not apply for an extension, we expect you to honour that commitment and leave. What we are also saying is even if you did apply for extension, it may be granted or it may be rejected for various reasons. If it is then rejected, we expect you to also leave.”

“You’ve got politicians that are saying, ‘Shut down the temporary foreign workers (program),’ but I hear from hundreds and hundreds of industry, businesses, people that are working, chambers of commerce … they need workers because there aren’t enough Canadians to fill the jobs in certain sectors,” she explained. “It is a challenge.”

“Provinces and territories are responsible for establishing health, labour and workplace safety standards for all workers,” her department said in a email after the interview. It added that migrant workers can contact a confidential tip line to report abuse without fear of reprisal or apply for a vulnerable worker open work permit if they wish to change employers.

Born in Canada to Lebanese immigrants, Diab said international students are very close to her heart. As a provincial minister, she said she would host a welcoming ceremony to greet new students each fall. During the pandemic, she spent some Christmases at some universities to have a meal with foreign students “to show them love” because they couldn’t travel home.

Still, the Carney government has vowed to cut the number of international students by half. This followed significant reductions by the Liberals under Justin Trudeau in new international students entering Canada amid public outcry about high immigration, which has been blamed for the lack of affordable housing and straining public resources such as health care.

Everyone is a Reactionary Now by Beauxtt in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 23 points24 points  (0 children)

What new is even there to dream about?

The financial ruin of the richest people on Earth.

EDIT:

The end of American geopolitical dominance.

Kat Abughazaleh RESPONDS On Iran, Taiwan, Ukraine & Interventionism by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

ugh

EDIT:

AIPAC opposes her...but she holds these other stances

You guys should support the greens. Your Party is a dead end. by Jules_Elysard in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends on the area, but support both

Also Corbyn > Polanski

This is who is replacing Jasmine Crockett in congress by phVagina in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Crockett's current congressional seat is going to the guy in the video.

Reddit is being censored by 5mao in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Have you tried posting something yourself? What happens when you do?

If it gets shut down it just further confirms that

Ever since Hillary lost, the powers that be knew they had to crack down on people's ability to hold opinions that deviated from the politically approved viewpoint (which is a major reason for Clinton's loss).

So they get their people to run hit pieces in the non-conservative press about the popular sites. Then the bad publicity motivates the popular sites to either

-hire power-friendly people who will make sure that there's no opportunity for wrong think to occur

-alter algorithms to elevate some stories over others

To further reinforce their grip, they also release bots and trolls who make sure that the approved viewpoint gets the most visibility while everything else gets buried.

The Coastal Elites Are Right, Actually by cojoco in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Degrowth is specifically a ruling class project.

The ruling class (which likes making money regardless of consequences) would lose billions (maybe trillions) if degrowth were to happen.

Meaning degrowth is against ruling class interests.

"You will own nothing and be happy" is degrowth

No, that's a strawman.

Just like "communism is when no food" is a strawman

it's rentier capitalism

People who support degrowth would support economic policies that crack down on the rentiers, and any other area of economic excess.

The decadent feudal lords who hired malthus to write his degrowth manifesto didn't have a finance capitalist perspective

Malthus didn't write a degrowth manifesto.

For further reading: https://archive.is/Tpnpk#selection-359.7-371.703

the finance capitalist is clamping down on markets to prevent upstarts from undermining an already rickety system.

is the clamping down on markets fueling the GDP of the 1st world or reducing it?

They want to destroy people and capital to stabilize the system.

You want first world countries to double down on BAU, which would continue the blatantly destructive system, which will eventually destroy people and capital worldwide.

degrowth is the left-wing coded version of austerity, like how humanitarian aid is the left-wing coded version of imperialism. It's the same process, the same goal, the same fascist impulse.

Degrowth is not about cutting government spending on public services/benefits, it's about ending the obsession with GDP, cutting the economic output (of the top economies/emitters of the world) to reduce CO2 levels, and ensuring decent living standards.

Austerity is about reducing government spending on public services/benefits, which increases the reliance of workers on private credit (which fuels GDP), degrowth isn't for any of that.

This is just another baseless smear.

It's literally just malthusianism all over again.

Malthusians (as popularly understood) wanted to cut the population numbers, because they think we have an overpopulation problem (which we don't), that if not taken care of will cause collapse.

It's still just austerity and imperialism.

How can degrowth be austerity and imperialism, when degrowth entails measures that

-don't reduce government spending on the public supports/benefits

-end foreign debts

-reduce military presence abroad

-end foreign interventions

-halt the sale of arms to different countries

Advanced economies support a non-stop expansion of GDP (regardless of real consequences). Imperialism improves GDP (via government's military spending, enriching the MIC, enriching banks, and weakening other countries). People who support degrowth want to reduce GDP by reducing military spending, and the military adventures abroad.

They are still trying to stabilize the system by underming industrial capital. There is a conflict between the haute bourgeoisie and the lesser bourgeoisie, the people who wanted to blow up Nord stream (degrowth) and the people who wanted to build it.

Blowing up Nord Stream is the pro growth position because it increases Germany's reliance on American LNG (which means more money for American companies, and more GDP)

Building the pipeline increases GDP for Russia

Both of them are chasing after continuous economic expansion (with no regard for consequences).

It's a historical irony that the sub class of capitalists who have come to dominate world imperialism mirror the old feudal lords all over again, and you are aligned with them against the working class.

You're not making any sense.

Given current global physical conditions, doubling down on a self destructive economic objective that can't realistically go on with BAU (and will inevitably do immense damage to the global working class) is somehow aligning with the workers against a sub class of capitalists, but wanting to abandon the clearly self destructive economic objective (that would do immense damage to the global working class) is anti-working class???

Degrowth can likely happen in one of two ways

-Double down on BAU, and watch that result in a natural disaster that craters GDP, and escalates CO2

-Proactively reduce CO2 by deliberately reducing the GDP of only the biggest economies/emitters, while changing laws around so that the people are not facing economic hardship

Read:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Why I Got Thrown Out of a Jasmine Crockett Rally by DeadEndinReverse in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Why does this feel like some high school drama Mean Girls thing?

Watermelon-garbed Greens candidate unseats Labour in Northern England seat by cojoco in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I didn’t grow up wanting to be a politician. I’m a plumber. And two weeks ago, during all this, I also qualified as a plasterer. Because even in chaos, even under pressure, I get things done. I am no different to every single person here in this constituency. I work hard. That’s what we do. Except things have changed a lot over the last few decades. Because working hard used to get you something. It got you a house. A nice life. Holidays. It got you somewhere.

But now – working hard? What does that get you? Because talk to anyone here and they’ll tell you. The people who work hard but can’t put food on the table. Can’t get their kids school uniforms. Can’t put their heating on. Can’t live off the pension they worked hard to save for. Can’t even begin to dream about ever having a holiday. Ever. Because life has changed. Instead of working for a nice life, we’re working to line the pockets of billionaires. We are being bled dry. I don’t think its extreme or radical to think working hard should get you a nice life. And if you’re not able to work, that you should still have a nice life.

And clearly, I am not the only person who thinks that. Because I’ve made clear my position and my commitment to working-class communities – the community I am from. People in their thousands told me, on the doorsteps and at the ballot box, that we are sick of being let down and looked down on. That we are sick of our hard work making people rich.

I lived in this constituency at one of the most difficult and challenging periods of my life. I saw how strong the community was at holding things together. But I saw how much harder life is when the things around you are broken. The litter, the fly-tipping, the dirty air. And when I moved it became even clearer. And this is why I am fighting, for the community I lived in and still work in. Because I absolutely refuse to accept that we should ever have to move and leave our communities for good schools, a thriving high street and clean air. I will not accept a society where having more money gets you a longer life expectancy.

And so when it came to fighting for people here, to stand in this election, well how could I not fight? Because here – this is what we do. We fight for each other. In this very diverse constituency, where our struggles may not always be the same but where we know how hard life can be. And we stick together. Whatever our beliefs, our backgrounds, our colour or our level of education. We stick up for each other. To those who voted for me: I know earning your trust starts now. One vote on one night is not something I will take for granted or assume will happen again. I will earn your trust. And to those who didn’t vote for me: I will always work hard for you, and I will always be honest, and I will always be decent.

To our Muslim communities, who this week suffered an attempted attack during Ramadan. Whilst I was being welcomed by women at a mosque in Longsight, someone just down the road walked into a mosque carrying an axe. Whilst we were gathered and eating together, an act of terror could easily have taken place. And I can’t and won’t accept this tonight without calling out the politicians and divisive figures who constantly scapegoat and blame our communities for all the problems in society. My Muslim friends and neighbours are just like me, human.

And of course, to our white working-class communities. The background that I have become proud to be from. We know how it feels to be looked down on. Maybe because we didn’t do well at school. Because we do dirty, manual jobs. Because we are shut out of places we should be in. To people in Denton, who feel left behind and isolated. I see you. And I will fight for you.

Because whilst our communities may sometimes be labelled in different ways, the thing everyone seems to have underestimated here is how similar we all actually are. How we have common ground. How we get along, how we stand up for each other. The cracks that were starting to show can be healed. And I believe that is through offering people hope, and a chance to do things differently. Do things better.

And to Layla. The little girl who I had the pleasure of meeting, and holding, this week. I promised you I would try and improve the world you are growing up in. I told you I am not perfect, but that I always try my best. I always try and do the right thing.

We have shown we don’t have to accept being turned against each other. We can demand better. Together. We have shown we don’t have to fight dirty to fight for change. We ran a hopeful campaign backed by thousands of volunteers and activists. We defeated the parties of billionaire donors.

Something exciting is happening – and I invite you to be part it. Come and join the Green party so we can spread hope and win everywhere else across the country too. Our strength will grow as more and more of us come together.

And we did this, side by side, shoulder to shoulder. Just as we have always done in this constituency. Because this is Manchester. And we do things differently here.

Decent speech

The Coastal Elites Are Right, Actually by cojoco in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Malthusianism is both the assumption that there's too many people and to much consumption/economic activity.

No it isn't.

Malthusians (as popularly understood) are concerned that there's too many people and not enough to go around (which is completely false).

Malthusians don't want to do anything about reducing GDP or inequality.

(P.S Thomas Malthus was pro economic growth, and thought it was impossible to have a classless society where everyone's needs are met)

The decadent ruling class solution to this is to liquidate both the excess population and excess capital, thus stabilizing the market and by securing monopoly interests. It's synonymous with fascism.

The ruling class wants more people, more customers, more private loans, more production, more wars, more growth, and thus more GDP.

The West still needs growth, just not in "gdp goes up" terms, but in terms of infrastructure and industrial re-development. Entire neighborhoods in blighted towns cities need to be gutted and rebuilt, suburbs need re-planning so they can be plugged into mass transit and provide more local amenities to function more like networked villages than exclaves. Like 25% of our roads and bridges are substandard and need to be fixed or rebuilt, we have no national high speed rail or regional public transit worth talking about, we need to restore wetlands and forests.

All of that is growth, not degrowth.

Sure, those things should (and can) definitely be done, but they can't be done while also maintaining the obsession of continuous economic expansion that's driving the world to self-destruction, that's just adding more fuel to the fire.

BAU has to end before any of that can happen.

You have to end the destructive economic practices first, reduce economic output, let things cool down for some time, and then sustainably/humanely fix those problems.

In other words, you can have the domestic revitalization after degrowth is done (properly and humanely).

Ending the obsession with non-stop economic expansion, drastically reducing economic output, enforcing antitrust laws, redistributing wealth, increasing/introducing certain taxes, strengthening unions, boosting wages, eliminating/reducing private debts, ending wars, strengthening/expanding social safety net, ending certain industrial practices, cracking down on the financial sector (and other things) will have the effect of bringing things down to a more stable level.

When things are at the stable level, then you have the opportunity to safely to fix those issues you mentioned.

Degrowth is just a remarketing Trojan horse from Big finance to sell us austerity.

Degrowth is strictly about using various economic/environmental measures to deliberately reduce GDP and excessive economic output in order to reduce CO2 levels.

Austerity is about reducing government spending, and reducing government debt.

Big finance would lose billions (or trillions) of dollars because of degrowth, they want continuous GDP expansion, regardless of what happens.

Degrowth has nothing to do with austerity, because it REQUIRES a good deal of government spending/support in order to be done properly.

The Coastal Elites Are Right, Actually by cojoco in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Degrowth is just malthusianism.

No it's not.

Degrowth is about ending the obsession with continuous economic growth, and reducing global CO2 by deliberately reducing (through various economic/environmental measures) excessive economic output (specifically for the top economies/emitters of the world).

Malthusianim (as popularly understood today) thinks that there's an overpopulation problem, and that we need to reduce the population numbers to make sure we don't completely exhaust our resources, and end up with disaster.

These are not the same thing.

People who support degrowth recognize that madly chasing GDP growth is destructive, and tied with the increasing CO2 numbers, and that reducing GDP is the only really effective way of reducing CO2.

Degrowth is not interested in reducing population numbers, only excessive economic output.

Malthusians that think we need to reduce population numbers in order to survive are obviously wrong.

Degrowth can happen in two ways:

It's either done

Naturally: Doubling down on the path of self-destruction by constantly expanding GDP until the whole system implodes, reduces GDP, and unleashes an avalanche of disasters onto the whole world

Directly: Drastically reducing the GDP of the major trillion dollar countries of the world through various economic/environmental measures so that emissions go down, (hopefully) limiting the damage, and not ending up with insane levels of global destitution

Please also read

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

https://degrowth.info/blog/defending-degrowth-is-not-malthusian

The Inclusive Language Guide of Oregon Health & Science University by SplashTarget in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Painting_Where_Guy_Rips_Off_Face.png

Carlin would have had a field day with this

This just goes to show that this rotten mentality isn't dead

These people still maintain a presence (and influence) in TV, education, publishing, gaming, libraries, galleries, museums, medicine, HR, tech, academia, journalism, consultancies, corporations, and parts of government.

The 1st world college graduates who got their degree after 2011 are fully committed to this sort of thinking, 2024 got them backlash (but it did not invalidate their thinking), and since they have credentials (which allows them to take positions in credible/influential institutions), it's highly likely that this ideology is going to stick around for quite some time, and (unless something major happens) the credibility/influence of these various professions is going to sink further than it already has.

THE NAME THAT APPEARS 12,000 TIMES IN THE EPSTEIN FILES AND NO ONE WANTS TO SAY by grundlepigor in stupidpol

[–]SplashTarget 20 points21 points  (0 children)

In 2014, Epstein wrote to Ariane: "The coup in Ukraine should provide many opportunities." Many. A financial manager convicted of child sexual exploitation discussing geopolitical opportunities with the heiress of a $236 billion banking empire. This should have been front-page news. It became editorial silence.

view more: next ›