next time I hear “there is just too many (brown) people” i swear
You must log in or # to comment.
Knowing their names doesn’t matter, you cannot make things illegal for specific people nor would that help. You have to write and pass legislature to make it stop, and that’s why we’re at a fucking standstill on everything: a large majority don’t believe in legislature as a basic concept or solution.
and their customers have nothing to do with it? Does this person just completely not understand what a market is?
Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Not saying that the general point of corporations doing more harm than people is wrong. Just that if you think that the corporation is just one person, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
if that continues to happen, trust me, eventually none of these fuckers will be left in line.
deleted by creator
United Healthcare’s stock is down 60% since the incident. United Healthcares board and new CEOs lowered the rejection rate of patients out of fear as well. Say what you want about the morality of what was done. The efficacy speaks for itself
The stock drop would be expected, but is there any credible source that denial rate dropped?
The efficacy lasted for all of a month before returning to where it had been before.
So, UHC stock was up around 600, dropped to a bit over 200, and is lately around 300. So like ¾ of the drop is still there in linear terms, or something like ⅔ in logarithmic terms.
That’s true, and my bad for implying otherwise.
But I also think much more critically, they’re back to denying coverage exactly the way they were before Thompson died.
I have no knowledge to refute that latter point, and I am inclined to think it is very likely true.
Well then we just need to stagger the killings in intervals to keep them in check. Simple solution.
tl;dr Find a better method.
Repeated use of the same drug will bring marginal gains.
Companies will evolve to create lower cost (lower impact) figureheads.Cruelty works best when it is used all at once.
Operant conditioning, as stated by EldritchFeminity above, is better applied in a case where you have higher levels of control over the subject’s environment.If you do want to continue doing so slowly, then you need to accompany this with other operations…
like using the shock period to gather opinions into a voice gives a clear-ish indication to what behaviour caused the event and what change in behaviour would prevent further repetition.
One might think that it is something very obvious and everyone knows the difference between what they are doing vs what they should be doing, but sometimes just saying it out loud makes a big difference.This is one methodology where an authority would excel at. And this particular methodology would horribly fail with a non-authority.
But any authority needs to be trustworthy, which requires consistency. And considering how all pre-established authorities are collectively deciding to fall towards inconsistency, I see authorities failing and hence, the methods that work with authority.
They seemed pretty mortal to me yeah, idk why anyone would say otherwise
Then maybe the treatment needs more than a single dose.
Yup. After 9/11 for a while it seemed every week or two the news would report that “The leader of Al Qaeda” had just been killed or captured. Not a false statement, yet it happened again the next week.
Maybe we should assign these fuckers playing cards like Bush did 👀
I just want to say that the idea that we could develop a crowdsourced bounty system on the dark web using cryptocurrency would be illegal and I would never publicly support it.
Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Their HP definitely went down. And, anecdotally, I heard from a pharmacist friend that they were approving claims like nobody’s business for the next day or so
The way in which Luigi was arrested is part of their safety checks. A way to motivate working class to turn people in, without paying them. I generally thought reward money worked.
I learned it did not work from a podcast that no longer exists. Michael Bazzel’s OSINT podcast talked about it within the context of people who used OSINT to find people on wanted lists and how reward money collection actually works. (Podcast doesn’t exist any more, the copies of the casts went away with the podcast.). Sadly, there’s no replacement for this type of news and info condensed down into one place. It’s also a niche area of information, not followed by many.
Those McDonald’s workers were not paid for turning Luigi in. But they thought they would be.
Even so, look at the bigger picture. How many Luigi’s have there been since 1981?
Most people avoid confrontation, spending most of their days sitting in a chair or lying down, and thinking/hoping/wishing a white knight is going to rescue them from their situation. It’s one reason why so many people exist in bad relationships (1 or a chain of them). Because they think that other person is going to rescue them from their sad days of avoiding confrontation while sitting in a chair or lying down, most of the day for most of their days. Hoping. But never doing. Thinking about doing. Maybe spouting off on the internet about doing. But never doing.
find people on wanted lists and how reward money collection actually works
How does it actually work?
Generally? It doesn’t.
See making the call to tip off the cops makes you eligible for the reward. If you called the correct tip/reward phone number. So that’s the first road block.
Even then, you aren’t automatically getting the reward. No. There are still hoops to jump through.
As a note these additional hoops also apply when there isn’t a specific phone number.
According to the FBI’s website, I’d link but I’m on my phone, someone (an agent, a prosecutor, etc) has to put your name forward in a nomination package.
This is then reviewed by the FBI and other agencies, it’s kind of vague.
Anyway these agencies decide if you get a reward and what percentage.
And none of this can start until after a conviction is secured.
A lot if time, as one example, it’s conditional on conviction. So not only do they have to cat h the guy they have to win in court. That’s not money in exchange for the tip itself.
Wait, holup
Didnt bazzel stop doing podcasts way before luigi happened? Or are you talking about an old episode
Looks like it was back in March 2022 so still a little while before Thompson’s final claim denial. Show notes are available but it’s not saying much more than what you get from the title of the episode:
EPISODE 254-OSINT+Fugitives=Rewards
This week I release the previously-canceled show about finding fugitives with OSINT and collecting large rewards.
He did his Irish Goodbye before Luigi. I’m saying, the high potential for not getting reward money was known prior.
Within a week of the killing, BCBS backed out on some of their upcoming bullshit and United Heathcare’s pre-authorization rejection rate has decreased dramatically in the aftermath.
Thimpson’s death (at the hands of someone whose identity we’ll never know for sure) was objectively good for the insured.
Kemp is alive and governing Georgia as far as I know but I’m happy to be corrected if that’s wrong. You may be thinking of Brian Thompson who involuntarily resigned his position as the CEO of UnitedHealthcare on a NYC sidewalk.
Ah damn, you right. Should have Googled it. Too many Brian’s in the news, lol. Got the wires crossed.
Editing to fix.
You did have my hopes up for a moment.
Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is a learning process in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of reward or aversive stimuli. The frequency or duration of the behavior may increase through reinforcement or decrease through punishment or extinction.
… So kill the entire board.
That’d probably make a more uh, substantial material impact on their bottom line.
Oh, they keep doing evil shit with a new board?
… repeat.
Or, I guess you can just either … well, either try to run away and hide, pray to the normalcy bias gods that one of these days the legal systems they own will do something against them, or just resign yourself to a kind of smug, self defeating moral solace in being doomed, but being right while being doomed.
Maybe find an economic system not dependant on exploitation? There’s gotta be one out there somewhere
Sure would be cool if anyone had any realistic plans for achieving such a thing.
Which one of those things are you doing?
That’s a fed question.
It would be if the answer weren’t so obvious
You act like they’re doing any of it besides the smug moral solace
No I don’t.
I’m capable of being honest, and judging myself by thr same standards I judge others.
You just assumed that I’m not.
I didn’t “assume” that, it was indicated by the smugness of your keyboard warrior “just do such-and-such, or succumb to doomerism” argument.
No, you’re not getting it:
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You’re assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
At the moment, a bit of the first, and a bit of the third.
Its hard to be an agent of one’s own will to power when one is seriously crippled.
So mostly what I am doing is physical therapy so that I can get back to being a more effective agent of my own will.
I prefer Schopenhauer’s Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn’t inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn’t merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn’t overwhelm them first. That’s what happens when there’s an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, “infinite growth,” and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that’s why I don’t believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn’t mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn’t a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that’s why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There’s also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but “Good” is hard to define, so it’s mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
… Ok.
I didn’t mean to get into a philosophy argument, I meant to indicate my capacity to act in the world.
Bring crippled significantly hampers that, when it comes to most kinds of physical actions.
Okay, you can’t just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer…
The phrase “will to power” has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer’s “will to life.”
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask “Why do you want power?” But if you ask “Why do you want to live,” it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they’re more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
There is also a societal dependance on some of the status quo. The bigger issue is how hard they actively resist the change. A lot of places still rely on trucking at a minimum to fill the groccery store with food wrapped in plastic, most of which is powered or made by fossil fuels. We need to electrify and diversifying but they cling to oil and have way too much power in governmental decisions to prevent or reverse any reduction in dependance for their products.
the post is about who is doing it, who is responsible,
it’s supposed to make the problem less abstract
It’s a reminder that large problems are often tied to concentrated power. Holding systems accountable while still pushing for collective change is probably the most constructive path forward.
I said nothing of the sort. But I ask once again: If we execute these 90 people, will that make us stop burning oil? Is it at least a helpful step down the path of stopping to burn oil?
If not, then please just don’t act as though these 90 people are all we have to overcome to save the planet.
Of course something will happen. If the bosses or big corporations would be killed constantly, the next in line would be thinking about changing things. Just remember Luigi.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/health/luigi-mangione-healthcare-accessibility-impact-288343
It costs 7.5% of GDP to halt climate change.
But each 12.5% of GDP is lost per +1°C
The problem is that the people who need to pay are not the people who will be most affected.
Soon you are ready to realise that no, they are sock puppets of what is essentially a giant demonic entity that is Immortal and Controls human and replaces these humans when they misbehave or malfunction
And it’s name is Greed.
I call it Mammon and it lives inside the minds of every capitalist. Every worker who believes in markets, in states, in police, in corporations. We must kill the capitalist in the heads of every worker.
From Wikipedia “Mammon (Aramaic: מָמוֹנָא, māmōnā) in the New Testament is commonly thought to mean money, material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is associated with the greedy pursuit of gain.”
More or less the same thing, I reckon, but Mammon sounds cooler, so I’ll defer to your’s.
I specifically refer to megachurches and “prosperity” Christians as Mammonites.
IMO killing them is the only way to have any real change. It’s the very first step in any plan. We must get rid of the existing filth, before we can build anything new.
No, it’s not the only step, but it’s the biggest and most difficult and most impactful.
As the saying goes “you can’t polish a turd”.
Billionaires are turds.
Should I be worried that my initial response to this is “Hmm, so we might be able to improve the world with a serendipitously timed anthrax outbreak at the next WEF summit?”
About the response itself? No.
About the situation that made that response understandable? We’re way past “worried”.
I mean, somebody is going to have to do a little terrorism…
Just a little bit, as a treat.
They’ll find new executives, bud. Executives are just the lackeys for shareholders and the board of directors. A new one will grow for each one lost.
Giving up hasn’t worked yet.
I’m just saying the aim isn’t the most effective. Shooting someone’s foot certainly will hamper someone, but the pain will go away eventually. Gotta aim for a more lethal part of the body
Ok so not 90 people. But more like 2,000. Still a rounding error that is willfully exterminating the rest.
And?
Make them find new ones. And new ones after that. And after that.
Eventually that well will dry up.
So you’re saying me taking out some replaceable oil execs is going to make people have less demand for oil and everything that comes from it?
But there isn’t a “demand” at least not as much as years ago. We are trying to switch to renewables but the oil execs keep killing the renewable progress. The horse fucker in the white house won’t let us move on. He kills wind and solar and forces the coal plants to stay open.
And that horse fucker won more votes than Kamala.
There’s a whole party where resistance to green tech is one of the items of faith, hundreds of millions of people. Not just a handful of oil execs. (And yknow, the millions who still use gasoline in their cars etc.)
Edit: That’s not to mention all those who like to fly places.
You could argue it, but at the same time no one prevents you from going to AliExpress and buying cheap solar. The fact that US decided not to invest, does not mean solar on global scale is doomed. Rest of the world is doing pretty well
People keep curling out small humans, so oil-derived fertiliser is the only thing preventing a famine that would kill billions.
I honestly have to wonder at what point people will collectively say “why the hell are we letting them do this” ? Not sure what happens after that, but it seems like it must have to happen at some point, right? Right?
Never underestimate the power of inertia. Some people live their entire lives on it.
Because the average American and European feels their convenient lifestyle is more important than the life of the planet. They’ll talk the talk about the environment, but they won’t walk the wall with their votes or actions.
I was recently at a kind of convention on the topic of “how to build a sustainable society”. There were two ~40 yr old ladies in the row in front of me.
One got out this super shiny copper flask. The lady next to her was like “oh that looks nice!” and they start talking about it. The lady that got it out said something about copper, its health impacts blabla and how she got it last week from Amazon.
And I’m just sitting there, holding it together, almost laughing out of frustration, about this whole situation.
Like, maybe she did actually need a bottle to hydrate herself outside, but…
Please do not put Europeans in the same pot with US Americans. These days are altogether over but for the topic of fighting climate change things were different for quite a while.
You are. Don’t pretend you aren’t, on climate issues. You’re doing more than the usa, yes, but no where even close to enough.
If so then we are all in the same pot. Who is doing enough or more than that?
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/
I would say anyone who is above 70% renewables is potentially on track. But you need to take heating and cars into consideration for usage, as well as the carbon impacts of imports and various industries… So really,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Including this information, maybe some random small African nations.
Exactly.
Because the people in positions to do something about it get paid by the evil doers to make sure business is as usual
The problem its not just some rich guys they are just the hitmen. Its PetroStates that are behind them. Its not about money at this point its about power and a house of cards those states put in place completely propped up by oil. As in if they stop oil their Nation collapses and they dragged from into the streets and eliminated.
If only there was like a deck of cards with their faces on it.
Had a few seconds where I thought “Wired” was referring to the tech magazine and wondered what “Tired” is, who would choose name for their magazine or whatever?
TIRED: A magazine for millenials and Gen X
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
Sometimes I like to gaze lovingly into their faces while writing their names in my diary.
Something to remember about the Forbes List: the most terrible people of all, aren’t even on it. There is a level of wealth that floats above mere billionaires, for which there almost isn’t even a category. Forbes knows not to mention these families in the context of some tawdry popularity contest among nouveau riche Techno Trash. They are mostly centuries old multi-generational wealth like monarchies, the Rothschilds, sheikhs, organized crime families, dictators, etc.
They aren’t on the list, but they hold the real wealth, and more importantly, the real power. Everything else is an illusion of their making.
My understanding of it is that its not really some conspiracy to hide the top wealth; the forbes lists are all opt- in. They reach out to a bunch of Uber wealthy, people, and those who want in send back bios and stats for them to rank and publish.
At least that’s the way it was explained to me. I dated an heiress for a while, and at one point her dad told me hed only ever had his name on the list for one year, and that was as part of the ‘debut campaign’ for his second wife.
Of you look ar the list it makes sense. It’s mostly the new rich, people still seaking validation and status from their wealth, the sociopaths and a lot of the tech bilionaires like elon and zuckerberg who treat it like a competition, and people who benefit from the name recognition and status perception for their company, like all the fashion and design company owners using it to help associate their brands with luxury, and the investment banker types like Bloomberg, ken griffin, etc, who use it to show success of their companies and get other rich people to invest with them.
So, vampires. They’re vampires.
That page 404 errors for me. Here’s an alt:
Kind of. It’s the system they operate under, capitalism.
Get rid of those specific people and you would have others people take their place.
However, not to say that it isn’t worthwhile to also bust out the guillotines
If you bust out the guillotine, the people who replace them will behave as if they’ve seen what happens when the guillotines get busted out.
Renewables+nuclear is cheaper and in a truly free market would beat out oil
Cheaper is not the same as more profitable. It’s an important distinction. You can’t own and control the sun and charge people to harvest the energy. Monopolizing and gatekeeping are the end goals of capital owners.
Unless you think the Chinese market is more free. They’re producing solar panels like crazy.
Oil is only profitable for the people producing oil, which is not most people
That’s… the point
Then? More people have the incentive to break from this than not
Let’s take a famous adage of “teach a man to fish” and attempt to demonstrate these two business strategies. Let’s bend this metaphor to the point of breaking. Fish are the analog for energy.
Business model #1: (solar panels) You make fishing poles so that people can fish on the lake for themselves. After you sell someone a pole, you no longer have that person paying you more money unless they break it. It’s a fairly straightforward business that allows people to get their own food.
Business model #2: (oil) You own the lake, you own the boats and fishing poles. You pay people a wage to fish, that are yours too. You pay people to sell your fish, you build infrastructure to wall off the lake. You pay guards a wage to protect your lake from people that want “free fish”. If people want food, you have leverage over people through ownership of all the assets and lake. You can raise prices when you want. As your fish business is successful you buy up all the lakes around and get a monopoly. Maybe you intentionally don’t merge with 1 or 2 other companies to prevent government regulation against monopolies and effectively raise prices in unison (it’s called price leadership). A freer market will just make this control worse and more pronounced. A new fuedalism will emerge of a few kings and serfs that own nothing and rent from people that own.
It’s more expensive, less efficient, less egalitarian, but it will be more profitable because you own it.
OK. Oil is only profitable for a select few people now. Why don’t we rise up in arms to change production and seize the means of production now? More people have incentive to now than not (most people are not oil billionaires), why doesn’t it change?
Coercion through state violence, a propaganda apparatus telling you the only way to structure society is through capitalism, and treats to sedate the masses from revolting against their living conditions.
A magic nebulous “more free” market doesn’t change that.
One path requires a break from capitalism through a mass revolution and the other doesn’t
Would you say the health industry is exactly the same after Luigi?
Exactly? Of course not
Almost exactly? Yes
So if one death changes at least a little bit. Can’t you believe that 100 deaths might change something?
Imagine if we just locked all the doors and firebombed Davos. Could save humanity in one day of work.
edit: for legal reasons I wish to clarify this is a joke
This is good joke! Very funny that nobody has killed these people! L O L
edit: for legal reasons I wish to clarify this is a joke
Sure {wink!} 😉
Still wrong, it’s capitalism. Without them, there would be different people in the same position. Hate the game, not the player. Well, hate the game and the player but don’t expect change from exchanging the player
in the same position
Important to note that those people would be acutely aware of how vulnerable said position is. People act differently when they’re reminded of their own mortality.
They aren’t talking about expecting change. They are talking about demanding change at gunpoint, and honestly I can’t say I’m entirely opposed.
These people are completely unaffected by the law or any other form of consequences. They have removed our capability to peacefully take action, but the less-peaceful option is always there and there are legions more of us.
Yes, the Soviet union and China ran/run on unicorn powder and butterflies. Surely capitalism and those 90 guys are the problem.
Me criticizing one thing doesn’t mean you get to pick another thing I supposedly like
No, I’m just pointing out that all economic systems we tried so far destroy the environment, it’s not specifically capitalisms fault.
For some people, history ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall which is already laughable. For you, history started with its building.
Nope, since the industrial revolution we had capitalism, communism, feudalism and a bunch of others, and they all destroyed the environment. Norilsk was a nightmare well before the wall went up. London had unbreathable air a century before that.
So history started with the industrial revolution, I see.
Environment destruction did at scale.
What’s your best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism? Do you have any?
By capitalism, I mean
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
Capitalism was literally invented in the last few hundred years.
Sure, but before that was feudalism, or similar systems where the state owned the means of production with no competition besides foreign powers and sometimes the church. Capitalism doesn’t give much power to workers, but it’s definitely more than serfdom.
Tell me you’ve never studied history pre-1800 without telling me you’ve never studied history pre-1800.
Tell me you don’t have a clue without telling me you don’t have a clue
If you want actual examples, almost all societies before 1800 we’re not capitalist. Feudal society wasn’t capitalist, neither was Roman society. Hunter gather society by most accounts was a form of primitive communism, and that is the vast majority of human history.
Rome wasn’t capitalist?
What definition of capitalism are you using? They seemed very capitalist to me.
(I am using standard simple definition of “an economic system where private individuals or companies own and control businesses and property”)
You’re going to need a narrow definition of company for that definition to not be very broad, as Wikipedia defines company as:
A company is a legal entity representing an association of legal persons with a shared objective, such as generating profit or benefiting society.
So basically a company can be any group of people, separated from the state but still recognized by it. So is a commune a company then? If everything was controlled by communes would that be capitalist?
It’s better to use a more specific definition, again from wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[1][2] This socioeconomic system has developed historically in several stages, and is defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
While all of these existed in Roman civilization, concentrated in the big cities such as Rome, the majority of the economy was slaves and peasants working the land to feed themselves while being forced to give a portion to landlords as rent and to the government as taxes, much like most agricultural civilizations. This sort of economy does not revolve around profit ie. Buying something, paying someone to improve it, and selling it for more on an open market so you can buy more and sell that and on and on… That is possible in Rome and there are capitalists, but that’s not the main mode of production in the economy so the economy isn’t capitalist. Just like there are communes in the US but the US isn’t communist.
I don’t need that narrow definition, as the definition I’m using is “…private individuals OR companies”, so no companies are required.
Are companies necessary with capitalism? Not per the definition. They CAN be a part of it.
There were TONS of “profit-motivated” Romans throughout their economy. I think that the definition you used from Wikipedia means that Rome was capitalist, as private property, profit motive, competitive markets, commodification, and wage labor were all a part of Roman civilization, and not a small part.
Centurions could own land and were paid a wage, etc. All existed under Rome.
Thanks for your answer, I am very familiar with Rome and at least I know where you’re coming from. In spite of your initial comment, I’ve read quite a bit about pre-1800s civilization. Perhaps more than you regarding Rome, as revealed by your response.
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
Bad definition of Capitalism. This existed in Feudal states. Simple definitions are rarely the ones to use.
Then provide your preferred definition of capitalism and answer?
Using your preferred definition of capitalism, what is the best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism?
This is an honest question… I can’t think of any nation that has existed without it, so I asked.
any socialist society will be inherently disadvantaged by the fact that the global hegemon, the USA, is hellbent on destroying them. so, given that, maybe the soviet union? china? they certainly aren’t perfect, soviet union especially, but any future socialist project can (and should) learn from their successes and mistakes
You have mercantilism and other forms of private business without capitalism. A yeoman making something and selling it isn’t capitalism.
Your definition is intentionally bad because you do in fact have to separate capitalism from just the very generic concept of private enterprise.
Collective ownership is very common (no pun intended) global and throughout history
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
That’s not the simplest definition because it’s not the definition of capitalism at all. You can have property ownership without capitalism.
By that definition, Roman Empire? Which lasted pretty damn long, by similar methods. Imperialism. A government that has at least a veneer of responsibility to the populace.
I mean there’s big differences, but more similarities imo.
I’m pretty sure what most people are referring to here is unfettered capitalism. It’s not an on/off switch, you can have certain aspects of one thing combined with the other.
No one ever does.
We need regulated capitalism. I don’t mind working for money. Most lemmys would like to smoke weed all day and not do shit. World dont work like that kids.
Capitalism with regulation and taxation of billionaires. Welfare state for the sick and elderly. Why is this so hard? We don’t need communism.
Cooperatives are the best answer. Capitalists will argue they should outcompete traditional firms in the market. If they’re supposed to be better they’d win, right? But the thing is they’re only better for most people… and not the few richest that benefit the most from the current capitalist system. And everyone’s too damn brainwashed to understand private ownership of the means of production is the root cause of so many problems. But let’s just regulate capitalism.
If cooperatives goal is to provide for its members and community while a traditional firms goal is profit maximization, regulation fixes nothing.
Okay how do you stop the capitalist who run our government and all of our economic production from getting rid of that welfare once their profits dry up? They own the military and all of its assets btw.
The treats they gave us have been a concession from the start. They were given because we put up enough of a fight that the capitalists worried not giving them to us would be worse. They will take them away if we don’t keep that fight, and its implicit threat, going. I don’t want all of our future generations for the rest of time to have to keep up that fight.
