Just due to all companies becoming cooperatives, does not mean everybody can just drive around in monster trucks, eat steak all day and live in giant mansions.
So your only argument is a strawman? (I never said anything like that, nor do you seem to have a grasp on the impacts capitalism actually has or what the aims of abolishing it are)
This “the big guys up top, have to solve the crisis” is just a way to deny any sort of responsiblilty and therefore ends up without any sort of action.
You keep believing that, and continue to be completely non critical of who is promoting that notion to you and why (also another strawman, because not buying in to these useless distraction campaigns in no way shape or form means inaction, if anything, it’s usually the opposite, anti capitalists aim at the core of the issue, while tokenistic behaviour makes you feel like you’ve contributed when in reality you’ve impacted literally fuck all but your own ego - there’s a reason my comment made you defensive)…
How is it a strawman you clearly said that consumerism has no impact on climate change here:
Good for them for taking a stand against consumerism, personal shopping habits (even collectively, they equal less than a drop in an ocean) aren’t going to change neither climate change, nor inflation.
You probably did not mean it, but I thought I have to clear that up.
This “the big guys up top, have to solve the crisis” is just a way to deny any sort of responsiblilty and therefore ends up without any sort of action.
As for that, I have seen that way to often. Classic alternative to “but China”.
You keep believing that, and continue to be completely non critical of who is promoting that notion to you and why
This is were it becomes important to look at what the campaigns actually try to do. BPs famous carbon footprint did try to make everybody understand that the y use fossil fuels. It did not lobby to stop driving and take public transport instead. Same story with many recycling campaigns. They go for throw it in the bin, rather then show you how to not use as much plastic. The key in those campaigns is not to show a viable alternative, but to make people feel helpless. After all, when there is a working individual action, people might lobby to make it mandatory and that destroys their business. BP does not run ads to buy EVs instead of ICEs today. That would be a viable alternative. So they promote the red hering of hydrogen powered cars. After all the individual action of buying an EV instead of an ICE can easily be scaled, by making selling ICEs illegal.
So your only argument is a strawman? (I never said anything like that, nor do you seem to have a grasp on the impacts capitalism actually has or what the aims of abolishing it are)
You keep believing that, and continue to be completely non critical of who is promoting that notion to you and why (also another strawman, because not buying in to these useless distraction campaigns in no way shape or form means inaction, if anything, it’s usually the opposite, anti capitalists aim at the core of the issue, while tokenistic behaviour makes you feel like you’ve contributed when in reality you’ve impacted literally fuck all but your own ego - there’s a reason my comment made you defensive)…
How is it a strawman you clearly said that consumerism has no impact on climate change here:
You probably did not mean it, but I thought I have to clear that up.
As for that, I have seen that way to often. Classic alternative to “but China”.
Just look at some research. So when you want more solar panels in your community, a good idea is to install solar on your roof first. That makes you 63% more likely to convince others to do the same. This can lead to tipping points being reached, which have a much wider impact. At this point the movement can be used to change the underlying system.
This is were it becomes important to look at what the campaigns actually try to do. BPs famous carbon footprint did try to make everybody understand that the y use fossil fuels. It did not lobby to stop driving and take public transport instead. Same story with many recycling campaigns. They go for throw it in the bin, rather then show you how to not use as much plastic. The key in those campaigns is not to show a viable alternative, but to make people feel helpless. After all, when there is a working individual action, people might lobby to make it mandatory and that destroys their business. BP does not run ads to buy EVs instead of ICEs today. That would be a viable alternative. So they promote the red hering of hydrogen powered cars. After all the individual action of buying an EV instead of an ICE can easily be scaled, by making selling ICEs illegal.