Yes but I'm not talking about Singer, I'm talking about how people in this thread talk about Singer and his charity.

Dude, I'm not saying he should be giving more or less or whatever. I'm saying that it's not an argument for one or the other thing. This percentage thing is also weird because if I make 100k per month and I give away 90%, I still live awesome. If I make 1k and give away 90%, I'm fucked. And what's more, the impact I make is 100 times smaller. If that's how we're judging people then rich people are the only ones who even have the luxury of being moral I guess.

>Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything…

Yes they can. They do all the time. Let's open a random news article from, uh, say the guardian. Let's look at the title of the first featured international news article:

>Russia-Ukraine war live news: Ukraine fears Russia planning false flag attack amid Kremlin’s ‘dirty bomb’ claims

Neither Ukraine which apparently "fears" nor Russia which apparently is feared to be planning a false flag attack are people. It's an abstraction of multiple different people doing and thinking often conflicting things but summing up to a specific overall direction.

>It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?

So, stop asking for what abstract individuals should do and start asking what social classes, institutions and movements should be doing. If you want a concrete answer it is not possible to get one on the level of an abstract individual.

I didn't say it isn't. I said it's kind of a cop out to say "hey well he puts his money where his mouth is, other people have it easy because they have cushy jobs". Yeah he does too, and he can put his money where his mouth is because of that. Most other people can't do that.

>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert

Definitely not in concert.

>Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?

That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow. The whole point is that "what do I specifically do" is not really a good question because, who are you? And whatever it is that you do end up doing, what does it matter if it's only you doing it? It's like saying, what do I do to create a good blockbuster movie? There is no answer to this, it's a lengthy process that goes through a number of institutions and involves many different bodies of people going back and forth. If the question is, what are the elements of a good blockbuster movie, then the question makes a little bit more sense. It also makes more sense to ask "I am involved in x aspect of y movie, what do I do to do my part well?", and that also makes more sense. Otherwise it doesn't.

Social progress is not something that can be framed individually in the abstract.

Me and you can't really know where he lives. But most people live a very "minimalist" life, except they don't chose to, and they have far more precarious jobs. Singer can chose what level of living he is happy with, stay there and be assured he will never be poor.

>And since in practice there are only the actions of individuals working separately or together

In practice most actions that are socially significant are collective, not individual, and very hard to reduce to "many different individuals separately doing x and y". If you are asking for a step by step guide of what YOU specifically should do, this is beside the point. If the question is about what a social subject "should" do, then that is a totally different question and a very widely addressed one.

>than come up with concrete individual actions

Individual actions are explicitly not the point though.

But it is also easy to "put your money where your mouth is" when you have said job.