And yes, I'm specifically claiming that on net people like the latter three have a much larger negative impact than the positive impact of people like the former three.

...Then I don't understand how your words are at all an objection to my description of emancipatory/socially radical politics. You do understand that, for example, MLK was a radically minded avowed socialist who led a partial social revolution in the US without either violence or "explicit political power"? If you don't find yourself "horrified" by this, then we don't seem to have a problem.

Your use of the word overpriced and affluent leads me to believe you attach moral significance to parting idiots with their money for baubles. Why?

It's not nearly so narrow; I see no point in manufacturing tons of useless shiny stuff and pushing fake desires onto people to sell it so that the cycle can continue - and this wasteful nonsense is a mandatory imperative for 1st world capitalism. If we could agree on a different mechanism of distribution (not necessarily state planning), we could be using our industrial might to kickstart poor countries instead - while 1st world people could be working less, consuming less, wasting less, draining less resources, enjoying more leisure and giving more attention to the non-monetary things in society.

Example: why the hell do we buy personal cars for driving in cities? What good does it do us at all? And have we even considered the myriad costs? How is this not a ridiculous failure of the "pragmatic" capitalist mode of distribution AND its ideology?