zeca

He is, although his reaction is limited. Either point out what else he should be doing, for constructive criticism, or shut up.

Mexico, colombia and Venezuela too seem to be standing up fairly well

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.

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.

Its just that the camera mirrored the photo

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.