On the one hand, yes, I can see your point.

On the other hand, let's not minimize American prison slavery by saying "we're all slaves". If you strain the definition you can argue all workers under capitalism are enslaved, but even then, some forms of slavery are far more brutal and dehumanizing (and racist. Let's not forget racist) than others.

Here's the beginning of the "fascist sounding video" you mention:

The west is a dystopian wasteland of moral degeneracy.

Usually when you hear a white person talk about moral degeneracy it’s some wingnut denouncing LGBTQ rights or women’s reproductive rights or whatever, but that’s not what I mean. I’m talking about real things here.

The real moral decay of our society is illustrated in the way all mainstream political candidates can openly support war crimes currently being inflicted on people in the global south without being immediately removed from power. The way monstrous war criminals of past administrations can endorse a liberal candidate without causing self-proclaimed progressives to recoil from that candidate in horror. The way you can have the two viable candidates for the world’s most powerful elected position both pledge to continue an active genocide without instantly sparking a revolution.

The moral degeneracy of this civilization looks like living lives of relative comfort built on the backs of workers in the global south whose labor and resources are extracted from their nations at profoundly exploitative rates, while raining military explosives on impoverished populations who dare to disobey the dictates of our government, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, and acting like this is all fine and normal.

Sounds just like Hitler, don't it?

Why not try to do both?

Okay, let me write in "Climate for President" and see how that goes.

I'm going to tell you something you really don't want to hear.

You always have a choice.

You could move somewhere electricity comes from renewables instead of fossil fuels. Or somewhere that doesn't freeze in the winter. You could wear heavier clothes and run the furnace less, or in the summer, wear lighter clothes and run the air conditioner less. You could install solar panels - and if your house is in a climate where solar panels are profoundly inefficient, again, you can move.

You could reasonably say it's too difficult for you to move. You prioritize other needs over reducing your own consumption. And that's understandable. That's fair. That's reasonable. I'm not criticizing you for making that choice.

However. If your house burned down or a hurricane took it out, you would have to move. You wouldn't have a choice. And you and your family would, most likely, rise to that challenge and find another home. It would not be impossible for you to move. It would simply be extremely difficult.

And that shows your agency. It's not impossible for you to reduce your consumption. It's simply difficult. I don't know your full situation, it may very well be extremely difficult, and I won't judge you for living where you are and sourcing energy from fossil fuels and so on.

But you have agency over your own life. And you have responsibility for your own actions.

(And please stop sharing that "100 companies are responsible for..." meme. If you do nothing else to limit your impact on the climate, stop sharing that meme. It misinterprets the original study so badly that it can't be called anything else but a lie.)

That factoid is vastly misinterpreted. In particular, the term "responsible for" does not mean "emitted".

The study it's referencing studied only fossil fuel producers. And it credited all emissions from anyone who burned fuel from that producer to that producer. So if I buy a tank of gas from Chevron and burn it, my emissions are credited to Chevron for purposes of that study.

The study is not saying that 100 companies emit 71% of global emissions. It's saying that 100 companies produce 71% of the fossil fuels used globally.

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

A whole lot of people hate this notion because it essentially frames it as the consumer's fault, but at the end of the day it kind of is.

Absolutely. Producers and consumers have joint responsibility for getting us where we are. Climate action requires joint action by consumers and by (or, more likely, against) producers.

Because politicians follow the money. And they understand voters follow the money. So polls may show that legislation against fossil fuel companies is popular. But politicians look at all the gas consumers buy and ask themselves "what will voters do if we pass fossil fuel legislation and gas gets more expensive"? And then they decide not to pass fossil fuel legislation, because even if voters say they want fossil fuel legislation they know how the voters will respond if that legislation makes their consumption habits more expensive.

It's a lot easier to pass higher gas taxes in cities where 90% of residents take public transit to work than in cities where 5% do.

I was ranting in a different thread about the "discourses of delay" that corporate and right-wing propagandists use to delay climate action. And the fascinating thing is, the idea that only individual consumption matters (the BP carbon footprint ad campaign) and the idea that only the actions of corporations matter (a typical American activist attitude) are both industry propaganda. The former is meant to discourage political action. The latter is meant to discourage individual action. And by framing it as one against the other, propagandists discourage us from taking effective action on either.

We can do both. We have to do both.

Sure. The Google term you're looking for is called "discourses of delay".

Tldr: The propagandists recognize the global consensus, that climate change is real and must be addressed, is too strong to attack directly. Instead, they work to discredit potential solutions and discourage people from acting. The hope is to delay action on climate change until fossil fuel companies run out of oil to sell.

The four ways corporate propaganda encourages climate delay are by redirecting responsibility ("someone else should act on climate change before or instead of you"), pushing non-transformative solutions ("fossil fuels are part of the solution"), emphasizing the downsides ("requiring electric vehicles will hurt the poor worst"), and promoting doomerism ("climate change is inevitable so we may as well accept it instead of trying to fight it").

And here's the thing. We need both individual and collective action to mitigate climate change.

Arguing that only individual action can stop climate change is delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

Arguing that only collective action can stop climate change and individual action is useless is also delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

The propaganda takes an extreme position on both sides and encourages people to fight with another instead of unifying and acting - much like how foreign propagandists in the United States take aggressive, controversial positions on the far left and far right to worsen dissent and discourage unity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/08/05/scientists-dissect-the-tactics-of-climate-delayers/

European scientists last month catalogued what they call the “Four Discourses of Climate Delay”—arguments that facilitate continued inaction.

1 Redirecting Responsibility

U.S. politicians blaming India and China, Irish farmers blaming motorists, organizations blaming individuals—these common techniques evade responsibility and delay action.

“Policy statements can become discourses of delay if they purposefully evade responsibility for mitigating climate change,” the scientists say.

The scientists label as “individualism” the claim that individuals should take responsibility through personal action. I asked if it weren’t also a discourse of delay when activists insist that individual climate action is pointless, that only systemic action can address the problem.

That too is a discourse of delay, replied Giulio Mattioli, a professor of transport at Dortmund University. The team considered including it under the label “structuralism,” but decided it’s not common enough to include.

(Depends on where you are. I'd argue that's very, very common among high consumption American activists.)

A fascinating study about how much people have internalized these discourses of delay is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000797#:~:text=Consisting of four overarching narratives,with its own emotional resonance)%2C

How do you expect to change those few dozen companies?

Especially if the majority of us really wouldn't be able to survive without them?

We're actually to the point where wanting people to consume fewer fossil fuels makes me a fossil fuel shill.

Wow.

The absolute state of rhetoric today.

Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?

Again, carbon footprint is not a BP talking point. It was a pre-existing concept that was appropriated by BP to prevent climate change legislation by shifting responsibility for climate change to individual consumers.

And then, some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don't feel guilty about it, because it doesn't matter.

In reality, both individuals and corporations bear responsibility for climate change, and both of the above arguments are corporate propaganda aimed at getting you to give up, do nothing, and buy shit.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

I agree with you that political action is vital. I don't agree that it's necessarily more significant than personal action. Feminists used to say "the personal is political", and it's still true. How you act in private demonstrates your commitment to the values you endorse in public and gives your voice more weight when you speak your values.

If you reduce your personal footprint, but never talk about it or encourage other people to do the same, your impact is limited to yourself. If you reduce your personal footprint, and make your actions contagious by talking about them with people you know and encouraging them to do the same, you can impact many more people, encourage them to follow your lead and reduce their footprint, and then they can encourage others to reduce their footprint, and so on and so forth.

Limiting the damage from climate change takes collective action. And collective action requires a community, and a community requires communication.

If you assume you are a lone individual and your personal decisions have no effect on anyone else, it's easy to imagine reducing your personal footprint is meaningless. If you see yourself as part of a community, and by reducing your personal footprint you encourage others in your community to do the same, you can see how much larger your impact can be.

If an employer looks down on you for asking about benefits you're legally entitled to, you're probably better off not working for them.

And lawyers required laws.

First laws had to be passed protecting the environment. Then lawyers (and government agencies like the EPA) could go to court and enforce the laws.

And we got those laws passed because enough people advocated for them loudly enough and persuasively enough that government listened.

In other words: talking to people worked.

I made them up. To express my belief that the vast majority of stuff people call the police for is not stuff the police should be involved in. Would you argue otherwise?

(I mean, I could dig into statistics about the reasons people call the police and formally analyze how many of those reasons, from an anarchist standpoint, are not valid reasons to call the police, but I think bullshitting a 95% number is fine. I'm not being peer-reviewed here.)

In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely.

I suspect, in an anarchistic society, serial killers would be killed in turn by the victims' friends and relatives, and the rest of society would shrug and say "murdering people is wrong but in this case we can't really blame them".

Anarchists aren't necessarily pacifists, after all.

Really, if you ask yourself "what would happen to someone in an anarchist society who killed a serial killer/rapist/molester/etc etc in revenge" and the answer is "little or nothing" you probably have your answer to how that society would handle serial killers, rapists, molesters, etc.

as an anarchist living on a state controlled territory, you need not feel guilty about communicating with the police

Unless you're calling them about something stupid or petty or irrelevant or outside their skill set or a situation which would not be improved by angry men with guns - and that covers like 95% of typical civilian interactions with police.

Reporting information about a serial killer probably falls in the 5%.

I'd argue individual consumption is often more impactful than your vote. You can't gerrymander a dollar.