Socialism is more popular than Project 2025

[Orangecat]

Orangecat: "It's all about degrees and direction. IOW, what degree of Marxist wealth redistribution are we willing to accept, and are we heading in the direction of increasing that number or decreasing it?"

Wealth redistribution within the context of a socialist society is merely a matter of workers enjoying the full economic benefit of (their) labor power and (their) intellectual power. Under socialism, the capitalist class and the petty capitalist classes are assimilated into the ranks of the working class, and the means of production become socially owned. As such, workers no longer have the lion's share of the wealth (they) produce stolen from them at the point of production and through a bourgeois system of legality known as private profit. That, the parasitic capitalist class's legalized theft of worker-produced wealth, is the accurate description of wealth distribution - from the productive working class to the nonproductive capitalist class.

Ergo, it isn't a matter of degree. With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce. Capitalists would then redistribute to themselves none of the financial wealth created by other human beings because there wouldn't be any capitalists. They, too, would become workers.

(Note: A socially owned and democratically administered means of industrial production would look [something] like this: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)

Orangecat: "The two candidates presented a fairly stark contrast regarding this, and the people spoke quite clearly."

Please unpack that statement, Orangecat. Please show precisely how Kamala Harris, who, for example, only half-heartedly supported a meager $15 federal minimum wage, wanted to "redistribute" wealth from the capitalist class to the working class.

In actuality, there is nothing that shows Kamala Harris to be anything but a typically pro-capitalist Democratic politician. Like her Republican "counterpart," Harris was utterly beholden to her millionaire and billionaire capitalist donors/owners. Had they thought for a moment that Harris was even slightly interested in redistributing wealth from capitalists to workers, they wouldn't have given her a dime. Indeed, had Kamala Harris ever shown an inclination toward socialism, she would never have been allowed to become so much as a district attorney, let alone a serious contender for the presidency. As a California resident who has been watching Harris for several years, I assure readers that she is anything but the progressive she sometimes presents herself as. In brief, she is horrible.
As an attorney general, Harris supported capital punishment. She refused to alleviate overcrowded prisons by releasing nonviolent offenders - indeed, she fought to keep them incarcerated as a source of prison labor. She blocked payouts to wrongfully convicted people. She prosecuted the parents of truant school children, primarily poor, racialized, and struggling parents. She prosecuted people found in possession of small amounts of cannabis post-Prop 215. And, among other matters, Harris refused to support special investigations of cop-involved murders.
As vice president, she has attacked immigrants desperate to escape the devastating effects of U.S. imperialism in their homelands. And she has no problem with (continuing) to lock children in cages at the U.S.-Mexico border. (Just because AOC hasn't shed a crocodile tear at the border since Trump left office doesn't mean that our fascistic border policies have changed because they haven't.)

Moreover, I don't know or know of a single Marxist who doesn't dislike Kamala Harris. And as a Marxist of nearly forty years, I know a lot of Marxists.
To be sure, we Marxists see Harris as completely vacuous — a howling void where a human personality, values, and principles should be. She believes in nothing but advancing her aforementioned socially reactionary career.
As such, Kamala Harris is an empty suit willing to be used by the capitalist class for its purposes, (not) the working class's purposes. And as many as ten million voters saw her as precisely that. Goodbye, and good riddance.
In cozying up to (the) most depraved neoconservatives, such as the odious Dick Cheney, she made official what Marxists have known for decades: that the Democratic Party is nothing more than a second Republican Party, which is something that should please conservatives.

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

Tl;dr
I stand by my previous, concise, post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Orangecat: "It's all about degrees and direction. IOW, what degree of Marxist wealth redistribution are we willing to accept, and are we heading in the direction of increasing that number or decreasing it?"

Wealth redistribution within the context of a socialist society is merely a matter of workers enjoying the full economic benefit of (their) labor power and (their) intellectual power. Under socialism, the capitalist class and the petty capitalist classes are assimilated into the ranks of the working class, and the means of production become socially owned. As such, workers no longer have the lion's share of the wealth (they) produce stolen from them at the point of production and through a bourgeois system of legality known as private profit. That, the parasitic capitalist class's legalized theft of worker-produced wealth, is the accurate description of wealth distribution - from the productive working class to the nonproductive capitalist class.

Ergo, it isn't a matter of degree. With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce. Capitalists would then redistribute to themselves none of the financial wealth created by other human beings because there wouldn't be any capitalists. They, too, would become workers.

(Note: A socially owned and democratically administered means of industrial production would look [something] like this: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)

Orangecat: "The two candidates presented a fairly stark contrast regarding this, and the people spoke quite clearly."

Please unpack that statement, Orangecat. Please show precisely how Kamala Harris, who, for example, only half-heartedly supported a meager $15 federal minimum wage, wanted to "redistribute" wealth from the capitalist class to the working class.

In actuality, there is nothing that shows Kamala Harris to be anything but a typically pro-capitalist Democratic politician. Like her Republican "counterpart," Harris was utterly beholden to her millionaire and billionaire capitalist donors/owners. Had they thought for a moment that Harris was even slightly interested in redistributing wealth from capitalists to workers, they wouldn't have given her a dime. Indeed, had Kamala Harris ever shown an inclination toward socialism, she would never have been allowed to become so much as a district attorney, let alone a serious contender for the presidency. As a California resident who has been watching Harris for several years, I assure readers that she is anything but the progressive she sometimes presents herself as. In brief, she is horrible.
As an attorney general, Harris supported capital punishment. She refused to alleviate overcrowded prisons by releasing nonviolent offenders - indeed, she fought to keep them incarcerated as a source of prison labor. She blocked payouts to wrongfully convicted people. She prosecuted the parents of truant school children, primarily poor, racialized, and struggling parents. She prosecuted people found in possession of small amounts of cannabis post-Prop 215. And, among other matters, Harris refused to support special investigations of cop-involved murders.
As vice president, she has attacked immigrants desperate to escape the devastating effects of U.S. imperialism in their homelands. And she has no problem with (continuing) to lock children in cages at the U.S.-Mexico border. (Just because AOC hasn't shed a crocodile tear at the border since Trump left office doesn't mean that our fascistic border policies have changed because they haven't.)

Moreover, I don't know or know of a single Marxist who doesn't dislike Kamala Harris. And as a Marxist of nearly forty years, I know a lot of Marxists.
To be sure, we Marxists see Harris as completely vacuous — a howling void where a human personality, values, and principles should be. She believes in nothing but advancing her aforementioned socially reactionary career.
As such, Kamala Harris is an empty suit willing to be used by the capitalist class for its purposes, (not) the working class's purposes. And as many as ten million voters saw her as precisely that. Goodbye, and good riddance.
In cozying up to (the) most depraved neoconservatives, such as the odious Dick Cheney, she made official what Marxists have known for decades: that the Democratic Party is nothing more than a second Republican Party, which is something that should please conservatives.

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce.

How much of the economic wealth produced by their "labor power" is needed to
pay for the machines, equipment and real estate that were previously provided
by the evil "private owner"?

How much more wealth will the average worker get with the end of private profit?

5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 100%? More?

Tell me how much more I should be looking for, give me some solid numbers.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is not a fascist. He is not intelligent enough. He has no ideology beyond self-aggrandizement. He lacks a uniformed army of fanatical supporters.

Nevertheless, Trump is more fascist than the Democrats are Communist.

trump is more fascist than you or I know. He wants absolute power and he believes he deserves it. Jan 6th. Was even more than you know , I hope it all comes out during the trial.

I look at him as a de facto fascist, or perhaps more accurately an unwitting fascist. And hell, I didn't even use the word to describe him until HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF, A FORMER GENERAL, did.

He's not politically ideological, he's not informed about the world around him, he knows little about our political system, he has no respect for the office, and his knowledge of world history is strictly limited to his very positive and spectacularly narrow & simplistic perception of authoritarian strongmen. His mental acuity is not intelligent, it's reptilian.

The problem is that this nasty, needy, hapless creature fell into the perfect situation for himself: A large swath of the populace that sees him as the lovable movie villain (our culture is incredibly shallow and celebrity-driven) who is the expression of their rage and victimhood, PLUS a group of craven politicians and politicos -- some of whom are closer to being ACTUAL fascists -- who can use him to advance their own careers. PLUS another swath of the country that doesn't pay much more attention to this stuff than being aware of the price of eggs.

A million to one shot, the perfect fuckin' storm, but here we are.

 

[Tankie]

With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce.

How much of the economic wealth produced by their "labor power" is needed to
pay for the machines, equipment and real estate that were previously provided
by the evil "private owner"?

How much more wealth will the average worker get with the end of private profit?

5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 100%? More?

Tell me how much more I should be looking for, give me some solid numbers.

I wrote: "With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce."

In response, Toddsterpatriot wrote: "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owner'?" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Again, ultimately, workers would enjoy 100% of the economic wealth produced by their labor power. I wrote "ultimately" and "in the end" because although capital improvements, perhaps rent, and overall overhead expenses would detract from worker's compensation under something like SIU ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ), those things would be necessitated in the interests of workers, not capitalists.
Additionally, the democratization of the workplace would make it possible for workers to decide the dispensation of the investment capital their labor power and their intellectual power would also produce. So, too, would the socially necessary deductions/taxes that would be deducted from workers' paychecks or perhaps "electronic labor time vouchers" serve the interests of their producers - workers. With the long overdue democratization of society more broadly, workers could also decide how those socially necessary deductions were to be spent on a societal basis. Such things as the construction of top-quality modes of public transportation rather than more freeways would take precedence. And a comprehensive system of public daycare and after-school programs could finally take the place of bloated police budgets.

To be specific regarding the question, "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owners," I will first say that the term "evil" is Todd's terminology and only Todd's terminology. Although no capitalist class has ever agreed to surrender its underserved and detrimental control over any society willingly, I do not wish for the demise of any capitalist. No one is inherently "evil." It is the capitalist system that lends capitalists their power. And with capitalism defeated, they would eventually be absorbed into a new classless society.

Toddsterpatriot: "How much more wealth will the average worker get with the end of private profit, 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 100%, or more?" Tell me how much more I should be looking for; give me some solid numbers."

For myself or any other Marxist to make such decisions on behalf of a futuristic socialist commonwealth would not only be impossible, it would violate the fundamental Marxist principle of worker self-determination. In 1915, in the wake of the Second International's collapse, Vladamir Lenin stated, "Our revolution won't occur in my lifetime." He was, of course, mistaken. Still, at 66, I don't expect the establishment of the "American Socialist Commonwealth" in my lifetime, if ever. Indeed, by all indications, capitalism's ever-accelerating and ever-worsening contradictions are being harnessed toward a U.S. fascist dictatorship, not a socialist society. But I digress.

To Toddsterpariot's question, I can only engage in speculation and conjecture, which would be pointless. So, too, would the percentage of monies paid to workers likely fluctuate over time. Suffice it to reiterate, though, that not only would workers no longer suffer the socially destructive hardship of seeing the lion's share of the wealth they produce appropriated by capitalists, but workers would be involved in reinvestment decisions and the like. That, in itself, would be liberating and in sharp contrast to capitalism's "shut up and keep your head down" attitude toward workers. The need for "Happy Hour," complete with all its negative social consequences, would likely vanish. With workers no longer treated as mere appendages to the means of production, the full potential of human creativity and flourishing could finally be realized.

So, a discussion of a possible pay ratio might satisfy Todd's curiosity. If so, one can imagine a whole host of possibilities. A system could be developed in which every worker would be paid, say, at most ten times the amount of any other worker. Benjamin Franklin settled on a 7-to-1 pay ratio, which seems equitable all around. But again, I nor any other Marxist can sit here in 2024 "America" and dictate that or anything else to people who have likely yet to be born.
One thing is for sure: the current CEO-worker pay gap is, on a societal basis, unsustainable and, therefore, dangerous. It is a situation that, coupled with the plethora of other societal destabilizing factors, will likely plunge this society into a state of industrial feudalism hitherto unimaginable. "Socialism or barbarism." CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978: CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

 

[Stann]

I wrote: "With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce."

In response, Toddsterpatriot wrote: "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owner'?" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Again, ultimately, workers would enjoy 100% of the economic wealth produced by their labor power. I wrote "ultimately" and "in the end" because although capital improvements, perhaps rent, and overall overhead expenses would detract from worker's compensation under something like SIU ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ), those things would be necessitated in the interests of workers, not capitalists.
Additionally, the democratization of the workplace would make it possible for workers to decide the dispensation of the investment capital their labor power and their intellectual power would also produce. So, too, would the socially necessary deductions/taxes that would be deducted from workers' paychecks or perhaps "electronic labor time vouchers" serve the interests of their producers - workers. With the long overdue democratization of society more broadly, workers could also decide how those socially necessary deductions were to be spent on a societal basis. Such things as the construction of top-quality modes of public transportation rather than more freeways would take precedence. And a comprehensive system of public daycare and after-school programs could finally take the place of bloated police budgets.

To be specific regarding the question, "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owners," I will first say that the term "evil" is Todd's terminology and only Todd's terminology. Although no capitalist class has ever agreed to surrender its underserved and detrimental control over any society willingly, I do not wish for the demise of any capitalist. No one is inherently "evil." It is the capitalist system that lends capitalists their power. And with capitalism defeated, they would eventually be absorbed into a new classless society.

Toddsterpatriot: "How much more wealth will the average worker get with the end of private profit, 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 100%, or more?" Tell me how much more I should be looking for; give me some solid numbers."

For myself or any other Marxist to make such decisions on behalf of a futuristic socialist commonwealth would not only be impossible, it would violate the fundamental Marxist principle of worker self-determination. In 1915, in the wake of the Second International's collapse, Vladamir Lenin stated, "Our revolution won't occur in my lifetime." He was, of course, mistaken. Still, at 66, I don't expect the establishment of the "American Socialist Commonwealth" in my lifetime, if ever. Indeed, by all indications, capitalism's ever-accelerating and ever-worsening contradictions are being harnessed toward a U.S. fascist dictatorship, not a socialist society. But I digress.

To Toddsterpariot's question, I can only engage in speculation and conjecture, which would be pointless. So, too, would the percentage of monies paid to workers likely fluctuate over time. Suffice it to reiterate, though, that not only would workers no longer suffer the socially destructive hardship of seeing the lion's share of the wealth they produce appropriated by capitalists, but workers would be involved in reinvestment decisions and the like. That, in itself, would be liberating and in sharp contrast to capitalism's "shut up and keep your head down" attitude toward workers. The need for "Happy Hour," complete with all its negative social consequences, would likely vanish. With workers no longer treated as mere appendages to the means of production, the full potential of human creativity and flourishing could finally be realized.

So, a discussion of a possible pay ratio might satisfy Todd's curiosity. If so, one can imagine a whole host of possibilities. A system could be developed in which every worker would be paid, say, at most ten times the amount of any other worker. Benjamin Franklin settled on a 7-to-1 pay ratio, which seems equitable all around. But again, I nor any other Marxist can sit here in 2024 "America" and dictate that or anything else to people who have likely yet to be born.
One thing is for sure: the current CEO-worker pay gap is, on a societal basis, unsustainable and, therefore, dangerous. It is a situation that, coupled with the plethora of other societal destabilizing factors, will likely plunge this society into a state of industrial feudalism hitherto unimaginable. "Socialism or barbarism." CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978: CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

Que Sera Sera !

 

[Soupnazi630]

I wrote: "With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce."

In response, Toddsterpatriot wrote: "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owner'?" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Again, ultimately, workers would enjoy 100% of the economic wealth produced by their labor power. I wrote "ultimately" and "in the end" because although capital improvements, perhaps rent, and overall overhead expenses would detract from worker's compensation under something like SIU ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ), those things would be necessitated in the interests of workers, not capitalists.
Additionally, the democratization of the workplace would make it possible for workers to decide the dispensation of the investment capital their labor power and their intellectual power would also produce. So, too, would the socially necessary deductions/taxes that would be deducted from workers' paychecks or perhaps "electronic labor time vouchers" serve the interests of their producers - workers. With the long overdue democratization of society more broadly, workers could also decide how those socially necessary deductions were to be spent on a societal basis. Such things as the construction of top-quality modes of public transportation rather than more freeways would take precedence. And a comprehensive system of public daycare and after-school programs could finally take the place of bloated police budgets.

To be specific regarding the question, "How much of the economic wealth produced by their 'labor power' is needed to pay for the machines, equipment, and real estate that were previously provided by the evil 'private owners," I will first say that the term "evil" is Todd's terminology and only Todd's terminology. Although no capitalist class has ever agreed to surrender its underserved and detrimental control over any society willingly, I do not wish for the demise of any capitalist. No one is inherently "evil." It is the capitalist system that lends capitalists their power. And with capitalism defeated, they would eventually be absorbed into a new classless society.

Toddsterpatriot: "How much more wealth will the average worker get with the end of private profit, 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 100%, or more?" Tell me how much more I should be looking for; give me some solid numbers."

For myself or any other Marxist to make such decisions on behalf of a futuristic socialist commonwealth would not only be impossible, it would violate the fundamental Marxist principle of worker self-determination. In 1915, in the wake of the Second International's collapse, Vladamir Lenin stated, "Our revolution won't occur in my lifetime." He was, of course, mistaken. Still, at 66, I don't expect the establishment of the "American Socialist Commonwealth" in my lifetime, if ever. Indeed, by all indications, capitalism's ever-accelerating and ever-worsening contradictions are being harnessed toward a U.S. fascist dictatorship, not a socialist society. But I digress.

To Toddsterpariot's question, I can only engage in speculation and conjecture, which would be pointless. So, too, would the percentage of monies paid to workers likely fluctuate over time. Suffice it to reiterate, though, that not only would workers no longer suffer the socially destructive hardship of seeing the lion's share of the wealth they produce appropriated by capitalists, but workers would be involved in reinvestment decisions and the like. That, in itself, would be liberating and in sharp contrast to capitalism's "shut up and keep your head down" attitude toward workers. The need for "Happy Hour," complete with all its negative social consequences, would likely vanish. With workers no longer treated as mere appendages to the means of production, the full potential of human creativity and flourishing could finally be realized.

So, a discussion of a possible pay ratio might satisfy Todd's curiosity. If so, one can imagine a whole host of possibilities. A system could be developed in which every worker would be paid, say, at most ten times the amount of any other worker. Benjamin Franklin settled on a 7-to-1 pay ratio, which seems equitable all around. But again, I nor any other Marxist can sit here in 2024 "America" and dictate that or anything else to people who have likely yet to be born.
One thing is for sure: the current CEO-worker pay gap is, on a societal basis, unsustainable and, therefore, dangerous. It is a situation that, coupled with the plethora of other societal destabilizing factors, will likely plunge this society into a state of industrial feudalism hitherto unimaginable. "Socialism or barbarism." CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978: CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

Multiple paragraphs with no answer

 

[Stann]

Multiple paragraphs with no answer

With no answer you want to see. Those who choose to not see are the most blind of all.

 

[Soupnazi630]

With no answer you want to see. Those who choose to not see are the most blind of all.

Wrong

He or she gave no answer at all. It was word salad.

This is typical of marxists who have to employ such methods because they have no rational thinking skills.

Marxism is rooted in lies and contrasdictions which is why it always fails and always has to be defended with worthless mental gymnastics

 

[Stann]

Wrong

He or she gave no answer at all. It was word salad.

This is typical of marxists who have to employ such methods because they have no rational thinking skills.

Marxism is rooted in lies and contrasdictions which is why it always fails and always has to be defended with worthless mental gymnastics

You see what you want to see , change is necessary. Unrestrained Capitalism is destroying this world. If it remains unchecked ( along with the human population ) it will destroy this world.

 

[22lcidw]

You see what you want to see , change is necessary. Unrestrained Capitalism is destroying this world. If it remains unchecked ( along with the y man population ) it will destroy this world.

As long as there are people promoting, pushing and forcing socialism living the life of what rich capitalists do, then socialism is a fraud.

 

[Stann]

As long as there are people promoting, pushing and forcing socialism living the life of what rich capitalists do, then socialism is a fraud.

Experts have concluded capitalism will go on until all of Earth's resources are used up and we are left with total devastation. You really want to go there ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978: CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Every single CEO saw a 1460% pay hike?
Or only a few of them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Experts have concluded capitalism will go on until all of Earth's resources are used up and we are left with total devastation. You really want to go there ?

Experts have concluded capitalism will go on until all of Earth's resources are used up

Capitalism never discovers or creates new resources?

 

[lennypartiv]

Great, let's ruin America with single payer healthcare.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You see what you want to see , change is necessary. Unrestrained Capitalism is destroying this world. If it remains unchecked ( along with the human population ) it will destroy this world.

Change is not necessary it is inevitable. When it happens naturally it USUALLY works out for the best.

When it is forced ( which marxism requires ) it is always bad.

Capitalism is destroying NOTHING. You only make that claim because you see what you WANT to see.

 

[Stann]

Change is not necessary it is inevitable. When it happens naturally it USUALLY works out for the best.

When it is forced ( which marxism requires ) it is always bad.

Capitalism is destroying NOTHING. You only make that claim because you see what you WANT to see.

Believe whatever you wish , change is inevitable . Hopefully before it's too late

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Believe whatever you wish , change is inevitable . Hopefully before it's too late

How'd that change work for the Soviet Union?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Believe whatever you wish , change is inevitable . Hopefully before it's too late

Yes I know it is inevitable I already said it is inevitable.

what ever changes happen will not be what you want and any forced change will be bad

 

[excalibur]

Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we have socialized K-12, and we see what a mess that has made of education. From tops in the world to awful.

 

[Stann]

Yes I know it is inevitable I already said it is inevitable.

what ever changes happen will not be what you want and any forced change will be bad

Like trump his trying to force his will on all of US. What comes next will be welcomed by 99% of the people. The wealthy 1% will try to manipulate us against each other to maintain their power over us. They will fail in the end. Humanity has to win. Humanity has to survive.