Wow, two pompous dudes who assume they know everything but don’t even bother to read.

Nothing you just talked about was said by me. Doomer shit, as in saying “all life will end” or even “all human life will end,” is in fact liberal, settler, bs. It presumes that a world that is not conducive to human life as it exists is not one worth imagining and especially not building. It is a convenient dead end that absolves you of the responsibility to participate in mitigation and reconstruction because, of course, it’s too late and even if it isn’t it will be and capitalism is powerful enough to apparently sustain a collapse of supply chains. It is foolish.

Nowhere did I say people won’t die, I emphasised that they do and actually value the lives of people who will more than some dude who does fucking nothing because I at least recognize that there is a way to mitigate the amount of people who do die. Additionally, I acknowledged that this is not limited to human life. Capitalism will not destroy all life on this planet, this is straight up reality. No, human systems are not equal in power to fucking cosmic events.

Capitalism does try to survive despite the obvious reality that a system dependent on infinite resources cannot exist in a finite material world. It will do so by killing more and more life until it dies, and it will die whether that is from human action itself or the eventuality of a world that refuses to sustain its existence through environmental change and yes, the collapse of crucial ecosystems.

I say humans are durable because we are, do you have any fucking clue how insane this way of life is in the context of life on this planet? Do you have any idea how close humans have come to extinction in the past exactly because of ecological change? You don’t, you refuse to because all of that is terribly inconvenient for someone who doesn’t want life to change.

Grow up and help. I won’t read a response as it’s obvious you didn’t grant me that level of respect.

I actually had to read all of that because I cannoy believe someone is this intentionally misunderstanding. You seriously have to actually read about the shit you talk about because your usable knowledge is obviously very slim despite your confidence.

You are fighting people who are not in this comment thread. Not only did I never say capitalists (no, not “oligarchs” like this is about individuals and not a system) should not be killed, I asked you to actually think about why youre making this incomprehensible assumption in the context of my comments. What do you think I mean when I say capitalism is both fragile and an immediate threat? Slave morality? You’re not even talking about anything at that point; it’s so contained to your own misunderstanding of what has been said here.

It is incredible to hear someone so dedicated to the settler way of life call me a lib. Blocked.

My brother in Christ, you people are talking about capitalism as though it were a god. Have none of you seriously thought about like, doing something even when the world is less livable? Do you think everyone will just lay down and die because the world isn’t as nice as it is today?

This is not “wishful.” This is fucking reality. Right this moment, you are working on a fantasy that is only appealing to settlers who would rather die than live in a world they are not comfortable in.

So fucking tired of liberals here insisting that people should die because they only pretend to want to give up this way of life.

No, Capitalism will not make the Earth uninhabitable. It will kill very many things the longer it is part of our world, but you are subscribing to a liberal fatalist narrative that constructs the future as definitively destroyed because it does not resemble the world we live in. It’s doomer shit that is painfully white.

How you got, “we don’t need to end capitalism” I have no responsibility for. If I say it isnt infinitely powerful but must end as quickly as possible, what exactly do you think I’m advocating for?

Crazy that the world isn’t bubblewrapped for you and people do shit anyway. Chud.

I get this is a meme, but it is trying to talk about something serious. It’s worth saying that fatalist arguments are actually beneficial to liberalism and capitalism. Capitalism is not going to kill us all, humans are exceptionally durable. Capitalism intends to kill us all though, whether through the dehumanization it requires to function or its inability to contend with the material limitations of reality. Climate change mitigation is a discussion around minimising the harm this system causes while it dies, and liberals often subscribe to fatalist narratives because they dont truly imagine a world that is not capitalist as one worth living in.

Very un-Nazi to try to gaslight people and punish emotions yeah. God you people are so transparent

I can tell you’re new to talking about Nazis. Howbout you stop acting like one?

God, liberals just love to show how fucking eugenicist and ableist they are when they feel like there’s a crisis. I almost never see these Nazis made fun of for being Nazis, almost like it would be too revealing to discuss why fascism is bad.

This isn’t making fun of Nazis, it’s making fun of fat people and rationalising it because of Nazis.

Yes exactly, they’re making it very clear they won’t stop until forced to.

Fuck eh, guess the state has absolute power over everybody within its grasp and all those periods of revolt and revolution were fake news.

Straight up, it would be mortally dangerous for federal US reps to bailout tech. The industry is wildly unpopular, has openly threatened labourers with forced redundancy, polluted and\or poisoned vulnerable communities, and houses some of the most famous billionaires in the country. This is not an industry that thousands of blue-collar workers depend on for wages and produces products that people need to survive. Also, the US state is subject to the most open resistance and condemnation it has had since the Civil Rights Era (even privileged groups find the erasure of wealth disparity appealing now too).

Seriously, I think if this were to happen, it would result in violent retaliation.

Lookit that, ephebophile strat went mainstream.

My brother in Christ, check the context of the thread.

My guy, you commented on my thread. You’re the bother.

I think you’ve missed that the assuming is kinda your whole problem here.

Yes, and it would be exhausting to entirely explain how flawed and ahistorical this is. For starters, you ignore social and property relations entirely when you imagine capitalism as “wealthy hoard money, empire make money.” Wealth disparity and imperialism are certainly elements in capitalism, but do you think all these scholars are just big dumdums who didn’t think of Rome?

I instead chose to encourage you to consider how you know what you know and that maybe you don’t actually know enough. You should consider now if that level of self-accountability is a waste of time.

Could you explain where you got your information on the historical conditions of capitalism? Is this just you interpreting what you’ve seen passively, or have you gone through the effort to find historians who have spent careers answering this question?

They said “tens of thousands of years” and you thought that meant two centuries before the Russian Revolution. I think you’ve mistaken dominant narratives of history as a European discipline with what has actually happened in the past. Yes, there are very many accounts of hierarchal violence, but that isn’t descriptive of how human beings behave. Most of what we’ve built has come from cooperation (think about how dependent the internet infrastructure is on free labour and cooperation) and the greatest obstacle we’ve faced as our communities grow is the exploitation that arises from patriarchal hierarchies. Exploitation is the site of those brutalities youre referring to.

Marx also wasn’t a historian, and wasn’t very knowledgeable about societies outside of Europe at all. That isn’t something we can fault him for as though it was his responsibility, but it is something you need to take into account if you’re going to engage with this progressive history model (Hegel didn’t know about’em either).

Kathleen Duval makes an interesting argument in Native Nations that we have evidence that indigenous Americans, in particular those who lived in relation to the Cahokia (Mississippian) civilisation, intentionally altered the trajectory of their social organization in response to this same exploitation. This isn’t to say hierarchy never existed again, though certainly in a less stratified way than the European settlers that arrived a couple centuries later, but it does teach us that humans do not want to live that way, which means they do not have to.