#these people are just like 'but what if YOU become a multimillionaire!! you won't like being taxed :(((' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

alpaca-clouds · 9 months

Text

Solarpunk is not archievable under Capitalism

Okay, let me make one thing very clear: We will never have a Solarpunk future as long as we live under capitalism. Again and again I will find people, who have fallen in love with the idea of Solarpunk, but are unwilling to consider any alternative to capitalism. So, please, let me quickly explain what that just is not gonna work out that way. There will be no Solarpunk under capitalism. Because the incentives of capitalism are opposing anything that Solarpunk stands for.

So let me please run over a few core points.

What is capitalism?

One issue that a lot of people do seem to have is understanding what capitalism even is. The defining attribute of capitalism is that "the means of production" (e.g. the things needed to create things) are privately owned and as such the private owners will decide both what gets created through it and who will get a share in any profits created through them. The ultimate goal in this is, to generate as large as a profit as possible, ideally more and more profit with every year. In real terms this means, that most of those means of productions in the way of companies and the like are owned mostly by shareholders, that is investors who have bought part of the company.

While capitalism gets generally thaught in schools with this entire idea of the free market, that... actually is not the central aspect of capitalism. I would even go so far to argue something else...

The market is actually not free and cannot be free

The idea of the free market is, that prices are controlled by the concept of supply and demand, with the buyer in the end deciding on whether they want to spend their money on something and being able to use that power to also enact control on the supplier.

However... that is actually not what is happening. Because it turns out that the end consumer has little influence, because they are actually not actively participating in the market. The market mainly is something that is happening between multimillionaires. It is their demand (or the lack thereoff) that is the influence. Investors, mainly. Which is logical. In a system, where the power to buy is deciding, the person who can spend multiple millions is gonna have a lot more power, than the person who has twenty bucks to their name.

Hence: 99% of all people are not participating in anything resembling a free market, and the remaining 1% are not interested in such a system.

Money under capitalism

One thing everyone needs to understand is, that for the most part money under capitalism is a very theoretical concept. It might be real for the average joe, who for the most part will not have more than maybe ten grand to their name, but it is not real to multi millionaires, let alone billionairs. Something that is going to be thrown around a lot is the concept of "net worth". But what you need to realize is that this net worth is not real money. It does not exist. It is the estimated worth of stuff these people own. Maybe houses and land, maybe private jets, maybe shares in companies and other things. These people's power and literal worth is tied to them being able theoretically able to sell these assets for money.

In fact a lot of these very rich people do not even have a lot of liquid money. So money they can spend. In fact there are quite a few billionairs who do not even own a million in liquidated money. The money they use in everyday life they borrow from banks, while putting their assets up as a security.

Why capitalism won't abolish fossil fuels

Understanding this makes it quite easy to understand why the capitalists cannot have fossil fuels ending. Because a lot of them own millions, at times billions in fossil fuel related assets. They might own a coal mine, or a fracking station, or maybe an offshore rig, or a power plant burning fossil fuels. At times they have 50% or more of their net worth bound in assets like this. If we stopped using fossil fuels, all those assets would become useless from one day to the next. Hence it is not in the interest of these very rich people to have that happen.

But it goes further than that, because politicians cannot have that happen either. Because the entire economy is build around these assets existing and being used as leverage and security for other investments.

Why capitalism won't build walkable cities and infrastructure

The same goes very much for the entire infrastructure. Another thing a lot of people have invested a lot of money into is cars. Not physical cars they own, but cars manufacturing. So, if we were building walkable cities with bikelanes and public transportation, a lot less people would buy cars, those manufactoring factories becoming worthless and hence once more money... just vanishing, that would otherwise be further invested.

Furthermore, even stuff like investing into EVs is a touch call to get to happen, because the investors (whose theoretical and not real money is tied to those manufacturers) want to see dividents at the end of the quartal. And if the manufactuerer invested into changing their factories to build EVs for a while profits would go down due to that investment. Hence, capitalism encourages them not doing that.

Why capitalism won't create sustainable goods

A lot of people will decry the fact that these days all goods you buy will break within two years, while that old washing machine your grandparents bought in 1962 is still running smoothly. To which I say: "Obviously. Because they want to make profits. Hence, selling you the same product every two years is more profitable."

If you wonder: "But wasn't that the same in 1962?" I will answer: "Yes. But in 1962 the market was still growing." See, with the post war economic boom more and more people got more divestable income they could spend. So a lot of companies could expect to win new costumers. But now the market is saturated. There is not a person who could use a washing machine, who does not have one. Hence, that thing needs to break, so they can sell another one.

The market incentive is against making sustainable, enduring products, that can be repaired. They would rather have you throw your clothing, your smartphone and your laptop away every two years.

Why workers will always be exploited under capitalism

One other central thing one has to realize about capitalism is that due to the privitization of the means of production the workers in a capitalist system will always be exploited. Because they own nothing, not even their own work. Any profit the company makes is value that has in the end been created by the workers within the company. (Please note, that everyone who does not own their work and cannot decide what happens to the value created by it is a worker. No matter whether they have a blue collar or a white collar job.)

That is also, why there is the saying: All profit is unpaid wages.

Under capitalism the profits will get divided up under the shareholders (aka the investors), while many of the workers do not even have enough money to just... live. Hence, good living standards for everyone are explicitly once more against the incentives of capitalism.

Why there won't be social justice under capitalism

Racism, sexism and also the current rise of queermisia are all a result of capitalism and have everything to do with capitalist incentives. Because the capitalists, so the people who own the means of production, profit from this discrimination. This is for two reasons.

For once having marginalized people creates groups that are easier exploitable. Due to discrimination these people will have a harder time finding a job and living quarters, making them more desperate and more likely to take badly paid jobs. Making it easier to exploit them for the profit of the capitalists.

A workforce divided through prejudice and discrimination will have a harder time to band together in unions and strikes. The crux of the entire system si, that it is build on the exploitation of workers - but if the workers stopped working, the system would instantly collapse. Hence the power of strikes. So, dividing the workforce between white and non-white, between queer and straight, between abled and disabled makes it easier to stop them from banding together, as they are too busy quaralling amoung themselves.

Why we won't decolonize under capitalism

Colonialism has never ended. Even now a lot of natural ressources and companies in the former colonies are owned by western interest. And this will stay that way, because this way the extraction of wealth is cheaper - making it more profitable. Colonialism has never ended, it has only gotten more subtle - and as long as more money can be made through this system, it will not end.

There won't be Solarpunk under capitalism

It is not your fault, if you think that capitalism cannot end. You have been literally taught this for as long as you can think. You never have been given the information about what capitalism is and how it works. You have never been taught the alternative mechanisms and where and when they were implemented.

You probably look at Solarpunk and think: "Yeah, that... that looks neat. I want that." And here is the thing: I want that, too.

But I have studied economics. Literally. And I can tell you... it does not work. It will not create better living situations for everyone. It will not save the world. Because in the end the longterm goals are not compatible with a capitalistic system.

I know it is fucking scary to be told: "Yeah, change the world you know in massive ways - or the world will end." But... it is just how the things are standing.

You can start small, though. Join a local party. Join a union. Join a mutual aid network. Help repair things. Help people just deal. Our power lies in working together. That is, in the end, what will get us a better future.

#solarpunk #anarchism #anti capitalism #unions #environmentalism #save the planet #explanation #sustainability #renewable energy #end fossil fuels #communism

757 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 2 years

Note

So, HBO and Martin conferred with themselves and decided that the backlash after GoT s8 was fictional; that angry people on the net are not angry in rl. So they decided to make a story abt more seriously disturbed tyrants that no one will understand they're tyrants. My guess is the story will be so dark and disturbing it won't even have half the audience of GoT because viewers are already disgusted by the latter.

You know, even in the midst of my disappointment over s8, I told people to never @ the writers, actors, showrunners etc, because while I think most of the criticism leveled at D&D is deserved, I do not condone harassment. I hate that the fandom had been so toxic to certain actors (like Sophie, in the early years), and because of that, I can understand why the cast and crew may look at the fandom as a cesspool.

HOWEVER.

*ranting below*

@minitafan had to listen to a private meltdown over some quotes a little while ago so she can attest to the fact that I’m not here for professional writers feigning ignorance over why fans were so upset about the finale. It was objectively bad, and pretending like the criticism is just fandom toxicity and that a huge percentage of the audience didn’t agree is self-serving spin. It might work, but the claim is laughable.

Martin’s enthusiasm for seeing his characters and world on screen, his love for his endgame (however much you believe GoT adhered to his), doesn’t change the fact that how D&D delivered it made absolutely no sense. I understand that the cast put a lot of work into s8, but that doesn’t change the fact that the writing was incoherent and the final product was bad. Their effort (unfortunately) couldn’t fix what should have been altered in the writing stages. So, regardless of their feelings, I don’t care to hear them lash out at fans when they should acknowledge the real problem or just abstain from commenting.

Point-blank: I’m not here for people who have become multimillionaires turning on the fan base that made that happen.

It’s not toxic to criticize entertainment, there are people who do it professionally. They’re paid to do it. And considering how closely D&D/HBO worked with some professionals in the industry and how much they enjoyed the glossy, flattering takes, I think it’s a bit much for them to dismiss the fans who hop on here to bitch about it. I think it’s a net good that I can now see normal people’s reaction to entertainment (the critics vs the general audience score on rotten tomatoes for example) when choosing what to go see in the theater or which shows to binge. I understand why professionals think it’s a headache that they no longer need to just worry about getting trashed by critics but that they may also have interviewers ask them about online takes, but I don’t think fandoms having an opinion about a product is toxic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact, knowing how abuse and mistreatment is rampant in their industry, how misogynistic and racist writing has been their norm, I find it shocking that they think pushback against us is appropriate. D&D fucked up when they had Sansa get raped and I’m glad social media allowed people to complain. They fucked up with killing Missandei. They fucked up when they didn’t even think of the implications of the Mhysa scene. They fucked up when they treated the Dothraki as barbarians unworthy of exploration as a culture/people. I think it’s great that individuals can hop online and say, actually, no, you’re wrong to do that, do better. I appreciate the fans who criticize Martin for his problematic propensities too. Creating something I like, being successful in their field, does not mean these people are above criticism.

I felt awful when I read that Emilia was pressured into nude scenes that she was uncomfortable with. I wish the fandom knew that when it was happening so that there could have been backlash on her behalf. I worry now when I’m watching anything with nudity that this is something the actress was essentially coerced into doing because the producers convinced her her fans demanded it, and I feel sick that the same people who are lashing out at us, are likely using us as a tool to get actresses to do things they aren’t 100% comfortable doing. After me too, I don’t trust the people in the industry to behave in a decent way, not after learning that what shocked us normies was actually well known in Hollywood, an “open secret”, so I think all of these pros need to stop facilitating the exploitation and abuse that’s rampant in their industry before they call fans “toxic” for tweeting.

I think @eonweheraldodemanwe is onto something when he pointed out that a lot of directors/actors do this now, where criticism about a movie is dismissed as trolling, rather than acknowledging the failures in that product. Again, do not harass people. That’s gross, but we’re under no obligation to ignore the problematic things they produce of the horrible quality of it either, especially when there is financial motivation for them to silence fans.

It’s also aggravating that they have no understanding that for us, entertainment is our break from real life, we don’t live in mansions and can’t take fabulous vacations, so when we’re disappointed by our fun distractions and hop online to find likeminded people to bitch about it, it’s because they ruined our escape. It is a severe disappointment to not be able to return to characters and a world we loved. And it seems like these multimillionaires have no comprehension of what that means to us normies.

Anyway, done with my ranting! I agree with you that the audience won’t understand that tyrants are tyrants because that’s just not an idea HBO is comfortable with. They need dragons to get eyeballs, so they have a vested interest in keeping the audience’s sympathy with the Targs. I’m not here to see them convince the audience to support blood purity enthusiasts/conquerors/tyrants again. If they had allowed me to see the Starks ending that threat/that family as good, I’d feel different. Instead they acted like killing fictional Hitler was sad, so nah, not a fan of this at all.

It does seem to me that the fandom as a whole is open to it though, so I’m not that optimistic that as a collective we’re over it. You might be right about the general audience. When real life is so bleak, it feels counterintuitive that we’d turn to such a dark show for escape, but I’m not sure. Few shows have the ability to really transport you, and with Martin on board, they may be able to do that, just like the early seasons of GoT. It’s been years since the finale, and I’ve seen more and more people talking about rewatching, so it’s possible enough time has passed that people’s rage cooled down and this will be the success they’re hoping for. From my perspective it’s a miscalculation, but time will tell.

#ask dot

52 notes · View notes

holyshit · 2 years

Note

Harry said he had finished GCSEs and was planning to go to college. GCSEs are a two year program covering a wide range of subjects, with some minimum requirements in English, maths, and sciences.

Higher education (after 18) in the UK in an institution offering degrees is almost exclusively referred to as university, never college as in the US. In the context he used, college meant sixth form college, a slightly outdated term that refers to (what was then) non-compulsory education between 16 and 18 in an institution that offered A levels. A levels are a focused set of subjects taken over two years, and are the most common entry requirement for university. Historically (i.e. decades ago), they were intended for the brightest kids, and were offered only at private schools or at (free) grammar schools, both of which are selective schools with entry exams. As university attendance has become much more ubiquitous, one way to offer A levels to a broader group has been at sixth form colleges - which the selective schools liked because it let them maintain their elevated pass rates. Nowadays, most non-selective high schools also offer A levels.

So there’s two ways that prejudice exists against someone with Harry’s educational background. The first is that leaving school after GCSEs is the bare minimum of schooling, and one that most people usually exceed - so using this against Harry is just wilful ignorance of the fact that he took a ‘better’ alternative than his plan to attend college and sit A levels. The second is more subtle. Compared to taking A levels at most high schools, sixth form college often has lower entry requirements (in terms of GCSE grades), and therefore may be viewed as a ‘less good’ option. The implication, given that he was planning on college (and his choice of subjects backs this up a bit, but that’s a whole different discussion), is that he did not do particularly well academically.

All of this is irrelevant, because, unlike everyone criticising him, he’s a multimillionaire 🤷‍♀️

very interesting and good for context, thank you for typing all this up! i do think a lot of it is not even based on knowing what his education background is precisely and just knowing he was in 1d at 16 and people making presumptions based on that, and ultimately some people will try to cut down people they don't like in whichever way they can. and it's an unfortunate reality that some people with higher education will often use that as a way to cut down other people and to feel superior, and i think they will often feel extra entitled to do that with celebrities because they want to knock them down a few pegs.

he likely won't see or won't care what people say because he clearly took a rare path that paid off more than any formal education would have gotten him that the grand majority of people would have taken in his position, so like you said, it's irrelevant considering it doesn't say anything about how far he would've gone in education without getting on TXF. it's a moot point, really. but the unintended consequence is that it is not the celebrity in question who is affected by their words (likely) since it's a drop in the bucket for them, but it says a lot on how the people say about it casually view the regular, non-celebrity people in their life around them that have less formal education. and that is something i can never laugh along with because there is SO much that goes into how much education you get, and it does not reflect at all on people's value as a person or their intelligence. so it's unfortunate seeing people stoop to lows like that, whether harry is affected by it or not.

#asks #anonymous

6 notes · View notes

back-to-louis · 2 years

Note

One of the weirder things about Larries is that they think that a 12-year-long PR coverup would end with the media CELEBRATING these guys. In their alternate reality, H/L & big bad management would be rightfully annihilated for how they had used other people (including innocent kids) to protect themselves. This conspiracy could not make less sense from a PR perspective. It’s so scary how much Larries have lost touch with real life.

It really is, and part of it is because they generally won't admit that their CT is not about "simply believing in two boys in love" or "closeting and corruption in the entertainment industry." As time goes on it has to become more and more complex and involve more and more people (when the number of people who could realistically perpetuate a real conspiracy is around 125 for 100 years, IIRC, before it would start to fall apart both from a logistics standpoint and a secrecy standpoint).

They don't lead with that and so they want to act like "this artist felt pressured to stay in the closet in order to have a chance at a career" is in even the same novel as "these multimillionaire world touring artists from one of the most successful boybands in history have to move little kids into their homes and put stunt songs on their albums in order to [checks hand again] um, jave a vareet?" No, that can't be it

It does not and cannot occur to the CTs that there isn't a universe in which these men wouldn't be complicit in the crimes/abuses they claim to abhor (not least because you can't compel someone to do something illegal in a contract! Want to test this out (other than just googling), imagine contracting a hitman then trying to collect on it in court if he doesn't do the murder). Not a one of the active larries has the guts to say that there isn't an acceptable reason - no closet, no career advantage, no monetary incentive - to treat a child the way they believe Harry and Louis are allowing the respective children under their care to be treated, and that's the absolute least of it.

It's full of magical thinking is my point. Might as well call it a rapture. Even though they like to claim they're a persecuted minority when it pleases them, once ** **** it'll be LARRY and LARRIES with the power and the public (who just believes what they're told, poor sods) will believe the new truth and therefore accept that H & L are good people who never did a thing wrong in their lives ever, and the evildoers will be destroyed.

If you pay attention at all to another CT that talks about, uh, turbulent weather patterns, and letters of the alphabet, that ending part looks mighty familiar. Bc all CTs are basically the same at their roots.

6 notes · View notes

redjaybathood · 3 years

Text

Ohoho I always said that BatJokes is a cursed pairing (forgive me shippers)

but bruce is teaming up with joker to take someone down who's even - in his perception - worse

And joker - not so bad, when he's not going around killing people

And, you know, some people even find him charming

And, you know, they make a good team. What if Joker's tendencies could be... Directed to better avenues? A psychopath catching psychopaths, a killer going after killers. Not killing them, mind (but honestly, for a sadist, not killing people may be even better). But, you know.

Thing is. Thing is.

They teamed up to go after Red Hood.

Red Hood had quickly and ruthlessly taken over Gotham and rules it without mercy. Drug dealers, sex trade and protection racket is under his purview. Those who break the rules (mainly concerning children or unwilling participants and introducing drugs to sex workers as a method of control) die. For everything else, he works in cooperation with some other rogues. Heists, robberies? Catwoman. Money laundering? Penguin. Contraband and car theft? Two-Face. Cybercrime? Riddler. Fraud is mainly free for all. There are applications, licenses, you have to submit a plan before doing crime in Gotham, unless you want to be dead or left, beaten and tied up, at a police precinct. And, it's safer for criminals to work organized. There's less infighting after the initial period, there's a know-how on evading Bats. Penguin tried, back in the day, something like that, but there were not a lot of people who supported him, and there were more people who ignored him. And with Red Hood, sure, there are frustrating things like: if you plan to kill someone during a robbery, you have to prove that your plan really needs it. And if your plan doesn't really need it? (And it never does) you better believe you won't be allowed to go through. And, if you messed up and killed someone anyway? You better go confess at the station yourself. It's tyrannical, that's what it is.

A lot of people switching to civilian jobs. Bruce, trying to save criminals, give them an out, outside of Red Hood draconian rule, creates charities, housing projects, jobs, funds education, child care, medical care, programs for addicts, therapy. Awareness campaigns. Buys prisons and sponsors Blackgate so there's no prison slavery and, the stuff that was produced in prisons now produced outside of it and they hire people who were released and pay them living wage. It reduces crime more successfully than Red Hood's capital punishment for any transgression.

Because, in the end: it becomes easier not to break the law and still have enough to live.

(Bruce, though, from a billionaire becomes a multimillionaire)

But it's not a panacea and a lot of people are still commiting crime and become Red Hood victims if they put a toe over the line.

So Red Hood needs to go. And Bruce can't catch him, not alone! (And sure as hell he is not allowing his kids near Red Hood; once, Robin happened by him by chance, and he got shot in the stomach; he is alive but that was still too close for Batman's liking; Hood needs to go)

And Joker just the guy to help him.

And, let me remind you, they work great together. They dismantle Red Hood's operations, they turn his allies against him. They also... Have fun? Flirt? Bruce doesn't know, but Joker does seem a changed man, a man who can do good... Maybe...

Finally, the confrontation. Red Hood, at this point, is alone and hunted not only by them but by the whole city. In the fight, Red Hood is severely beaten up but still keeps up. He gets Joker. He puts a knife to Joker's neck and he slides his gun on the floor to Batman.

"It's armor-piercing bullets, old man. If you want to stop me, you shoot me right in the head - or you shoot right through your pal here. Or I take him with me, as a precaution."

"Come on," Joker says. "If you wanted to be alone with me, you should have just asked. Oh, but buy me a dinner first!"

"Changed my mind," deadpans Red Hood. "You either shoot me dead or I mute him for good, cannot stand his yapping."

And Bruce - he cannot use batarangs, the guy has his helmet on. It could be pierced with armor-piercing bullets at this range, but not by the batarangs.

And to make the choice - not easier, but quicker, Red Hood also triggers the bomb.

What can Bruce do? He shoots Red Hood. He and Joker disarm the bomb. Bruce needs help because he's - he just killed someone, or shot someone, at least, it's not like he tries to check. He is throwing up. He is in shock. So it's mainly Joker who disarms the bomb.

There's a water bottle, and a warm hand on Bruce's shoulder, and then they're in a car, going somewhere. There's a kiss.

There's a body in the morgue. Its DNA or fingerprints are in no database Bruce has access to. Even his own. He checked. Several times. Because this man - this man Batman and Joker teamed up to stop - he looks awfully like Willis Todd. Like Jason would have looked, if he didn't die, or suffered from child malnutrition. Or if he dyed his hair white, just on the fringe, just a little.

But, Jason Todd's DNA or teeth or fingerprints or photo of his ears, even - it's not on file anymore. It has been deleted for some time, even before Red Hood appeared in Gotham.

Jason's body disappeared from the grave too. Bruce suspects Talia. But she never contacts him. Even as some old friends reappear in Gotham again: Freeze, Bane, Scarecrow, some of Ra's' people - she never does.

Joker disappears too.

A year from that day, he gets a present in the mail. Well, it's packaged like that, in any case.

He eyes the address (Metropolis) and expects to find a note with some aggrandizing and romantic bullshit.

He does not.

He opens the package. It's Joker's head. It's not pretty.

This is the last time he hears from Talia.

#batjokes #sorry shippers #bruce wayne #joker #jason todd #talia al ghul #batjokes utrh au #major character death

78 notes · View notes