reproleterization More like enserfment. Production depending on human labor or intellect is an ideal outcome of this ongoing crisis - it would mean we have some leverage for change.

I wrote out a whole thing but someone else's "liquid democracy" idea is basically it, but also abolishing the presidency and senate, and somehow overcoming the internet voting problem.

You're asking two different questions: is a planned economy more efficient at achieving it's goals than a market one, and are democratic institutions always the best way to distribute power, or can there be exceptions?

I think the answer is that localized control is best, and the more democratic an institution, the better the outcomes for everyone involved. Also planned economies are better than markets because we can organize their outputs to target better goals than just "make as much profit as possible right now". Combine those two and you have a democratically controlled planned economy, where the goals of distribution are set by the people who live within the economic system. Then it's just a matter of creating the most democratic control mechanisms possible.

Read The People's Republic of Walmart and learn you some economics and incredibly basic history of the Soviet Union. TLDR markets only make things that are profitable, but planned economies can make things that fulfill other objectives, like say not obliterating the biosphere or ensuring everyone gets a house. The Soviets didn't have the computing power to plan an economy but we do, and the examples are the logistical miracles of Walmart and Amazon and their algorithmic economic planning to deliver dildos most efficiently around the world.

The Ben Shapiro phenomenon is just a result of right-libertarian think tank funding, which ultimately stems from fossil fuel billionaires. It's just the YouTube/podcast/internet propaganda arm of that ecosystem that's meant to target young, terminally-online, white Americans. Ben is just a failed writer who sincerely believes in what he says, and is paid to not question it too seriously. And why would he? I mean, besides getting embarrassed by everyone on the internet regularly.

Is there a patreon to support this place? I'd throw a few bucks a month towards a good forum for left discussion.

I'm not sure China will be able to stop or reverse climate change without new sources of energy. Think expansion of safer fission energy, or, somehow fusion. That might be the only way to effectively sequester enough carbon to even consider a reversal. But there's still the huge task of preventing the extinction of species and collapse of ecosystems, which might be happening just due to the expansion of human built environments. So it's not small task. Still, they're the only ones with the population and political mechanisms to do anything about it, if it's possible.

The hardest part is just saying, ah well you know, the Chinese will figure it out. I'll just sit here and drink and try not to think about it until I lose my job and my savings are wiped out by rampant inflation, and the grocery store prices keep climbing. It's fine. This is fine.