I would love to see a chain reaction forming a collective of people with 'fuck you money' and just going around Oil&Gas and bully boards into basic human decency.
I’d much rather see people invest to outcompete oil by investing in profitable clean energy.
The idea that the “desired result” is so necessary and so important that any method, even a morally “bad one,” may be used to achieve it, seems very popular.
People lap up what they perceive to be justice against the machine, but it’s the system creating the problem in the first place.
That is to say the focus shouldn’t be on activist investors waging a war on change from the outside, but a popular defunding of companies that can’t responsibly deliver products from the demand side, and “the system” doesn’t want you to know that’s how to change it.
So we get fantasies of caped justice with appended hedge fund quality wealth and an appetite for morality and change, which of course is wishing for the very people who maintain the system to become the change: unlikely.
But then again it was the very same author who wrote:
> A man who is used to acting in one way never changes; he must come to ruin when the times, in changing, no longer are in harmony with his ways.
It seems much more logical to start driving electric, IMHO.
I think even your own quotation marks show that "the system" is a weak concept. You can't think of things as a "system" or "matrix" (if you're a right wing conspiracist) or "society" (if you're a left wing one) causing every ill.
How do you see the world? Is that vision of the current system particularly political, because I would consider it fairly objectivist based on my observations.
The dominant paradigm is a system no matter what political ideology you use to interpret it.
There is objectivism in “the system” as a nomenclature that shouldn’t be confused by one country’s domestic political paralysis.
The assumption of every ill is a rather presumptuous broadening of what is obviously a rhetorical analysis. And remember that rhetoric is always intended to persuade so no term I write can be written without touching on the prior feelings you have based on your own rhetorical training. But that doesn’t eliminate objective reality: we need to account for it in our conversations.
It isn’t healthy for a society to ignore the existence of governing bodies and their influences, whether you call them a matrix, a system, framework, a baked potato or any other term.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves"
Money talks, BS walks. That includes (as one example) the Saudis that live off the oil they produce. What makes you (or anyone) believe that they would allow for a Musk or a Bezos to ruin their business model?
If you see things in these terms, I think you are trying to address you political or environmental concerns, directly with corporations. This really end up feeding the government though - you simply get more government. Is that 'good'?
Hoarding "fuck you money" indicates a lack of basic human decency.