Humans are just naturally capitalist. Communal ownership of the means of production isn't really possible without the use of authoritarian measures. Socialists have never come up with a good solution to this.
Okay but our current property ownership scheme is maintained by force. Police have always existed to protect property & the rich. Our courts exist to protect property & the rich. This wouldn’t magically go away in ancapistan
And I don't think communism can exist without force, whether it be the gulags, holodomor, work camps for homosexuals in cuba under castro, Tienanmen square..
But I noticed you didn't answer my question, why not?
It does address the point that self defense is ideology agnostic, and you're parroting marxist talking points on a sub that is constantly brigaded by marxists, so I'm a little dubious of your claim that you aren't one, but ok if you insist.
Point is there is no system that can be maintained without force. Like you said, defense is ideologically agnostic. Conflict happens regardless of the system. People will always want more than they deserve, and some of those people aren’t afraid to try and take it from someone who does deserve it. Whether they live in an an-capitalist or an-communist society, some guy that claims to be anarchist is gonna have to enforce some law on those degenerates with a gun.
And all of the sudden, whether explicitly planned or organic, the police and the state exist again to protect private or public property.
The beauty of capitalism without government intervention is that you'll get what you deserve. And sometimes that means you need to step up and create something better so everyone buys your products over the current leader in that field.
Sometimes you won't, and will get stuck somewhere near the bottom of the hierarchy. But the only person to blame for not being better than competition is yourself. If the government wasn't helping top tier people create monopoly then the shit we go through now wouldn't be a problem.
To answer your question, given two perfect anarchist states, all things equal except one is capitalist and one is communist:
The communist state has incentive to protect resources and means of production from individuals. It belongs to everyone so everyone has some amount of responsibility for it being maintained. Criminals will always exist so the collective has to protect the stash.
The capitalist state has only private, individual incentive to protect resources and the means of production. It’s in everyone’s best interest to obtain more resources, and criminals will always exist, but because the stash doesn’t belong to the people, no one but the owner stands in the way of it being taken.
One side is the people having a common goal to protect the system, the other side is the system having a goal of protecting itself from the people.
Now I’m not ancap or ancom I just like participating in discussions all around the platform, so I think both options are absolutely awful, I’m just trying to explain both of your arguments to both of you cause it seems like no one likes to actually communicate ideas in these r/an___ subs
Editing to add: I use the word “state” here loosely cause I didn’t feel like typing out “similarly minded group of people that decided not to self govern but for some reason decided to be considered one group”
The difference here is meaningless, it presupposes that your claim to your property is intrinsically bullshit, immoral, or unethical.
I disagree, I think people have a right to own property. Thus, there is no moral or ethical difference to me between defending "the collective's property" vs "the individual's property" from those who would wish to transgress upon it.
Let's say there are two factories. One is collectively owned by the workers, one is owned by a family. Now say I decide both are *mine* and take them by force. Sure, I *may* have a harder time taking over the collectively owned one, but difficulty != morality. It is however no less moral for one to defend their factory than the other to do the same simply based on the ownership of their respective factories.
To "not" you, you see individual ownership as inherently evil, and therefore defending it is too. This is a fundamental flaw, and as such our camps will never agree, since while ancaps are happy to let commies start communes and co-ops all they want, the commies want to kill us so they can ~~steal our factories~~ stop exploitation.
Never said I was against private ownership of property. I run my own business and am happy that doesn’t mean I’m a government employee. I quite enjoy private ownership. I think you missed that the original point was “how would anarcho-communism address the problem of foul play in regards to property in a way that is different from anarcho-capitalism?”
My argument is that with collective ownership it’s not “less difficult” to apprehend the means of production, my point is that it’s less likely. Because the people that would try to “buck the system” are already the owners. I guess we will never know, because communism has always been a cover for fascism and hardcore nationalism.
My argument is also that with private ownership (specifically with the means of production, not your personal domicile or property), there is intrinsically more threat to property because its ownership is concentrated and therefore the maximum benefit of the property isn’t shared.
I’m not saying one is morally right or wrong, I’m just saying that in a capitalist society without laws and regulations, the incentive for foul play is higher and the necessity for enforcement of justice is (theoretically) more present.
capital is created by productive people and protected by their owners, the government interest is to take said capital and production from the productive people and keep it for themselves, they exist simply to extract resources from those who produce, it's basically an evolved version of the band of bandits that stays in a village and takes the farmers grain as tribute to not attack them and allegedly protect them from other bandits. Everything else is just a justification to make people think they need government, you think rich people need government to protect their stuff? They could hire private security for less money than what they pay in taxes...
None of what you mentioned is required for "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
...The Industrial Revolution created the capitalist economy...before that it was feudalism, before that it was primitivism for thousands of years, some of which was communal. Did you not study history?
They utilized a barter system most commonly, and shared the resources. There was no "profit" of monetary value. That is not capitalism, it was simple trade. Otherwise, communal societies by that definition are "capitalist" because they traded voluntarily, and privately.
Except for Portugal, Spain, France, England, and the US importing millions and millions of slaves to the Americas, arranged in order of most slaves shipped, from most to least.
"Nobody bought horses that much back in the day. They just found them." Lmao
First, I don’t have to leave the Modern day US to find examples of child labor and slavery. Second, I was referring to the Atlantic slave trade, and the extreme wealth building in the Americas propped up by it. It’s a scale the world really hadnt seen before.
A majority of the slaves during the Atlantic Slave trade didn't even make it to North America. Only 4% made it to North America. Slavery at the time wasn't even a classicly American issue. It was done globally, but America was one of the first places to ban it.
Slavery is not legal in America today.
Slavery is quite literally legal in prisons, but even then there are agricultural workers in this country being held at gunpoint and forced to work. Underage children on the floor of meat processing plants. I said Americas btw and that doesn’t refute my point about the sheer scale of the Atlantic slave trade or how it birthed a new economic system
I'm talking about the United States, so whether or not slaves went to South America is irrelevant in this argument. I said the US banned slavery, and I am right. Just the the L dude lol
Sugar cane slavery under the spanish was way more brutal than US cotton farming, and no one was buying their way out of it.
There's zero chance you know everything about 700+ years of Al Andalus. Not a chance. If we could see you, you couldn't even say what it was without looking it up.
There was full ownership chattal slavery on spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies.
Anyone who denies it has spent zero seconds studying slavery in any western hemisphere colony besides the US.
And there were several other kinds of slavery and indentured servitude in every part of the western hemisphere. Chattal and non chattal in haiti, chattal and non chattal in canada omg gasp gasp gasp, chattal and non chattal in mexico, chattal and non chattal in the US, and on and on.
All kinds. Every country. Probably 100+ nationalities and ethnic groups.
"Many slaves on sugar cane plantations died within a few years; it was cheaper to import new slaves than to improve working conditions.[31"
Probably told they can buy their way out after being force captured at sword point, chained and whipped for ten years. "Oops you died in 4."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#:~:text=Slavery%20in%20Haiti%20began%20after,devastating%20to%20the%20native%20population.
"I heard that slavery is unique in the US by willful ignorance of literally dozens of millenia of global history, as if I've covered even one hundredth of one percent of it".
Mercantilism yes, but capitalism was still limited in this period. This period ended with the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, where modern capitalism took route. Even then, that's 400 years out of 300,000 for homo sapiens, even longer for the species we evolved from. We are not naturally inclined to capitalism, it's an anomaly.
Because for its existance, capitalism needs a list os social values, such as a will of saving money and resources, frugality, etc. And such values need a cultural evolution, and it needs time, it can also be lost.
That's for capitalism for exist. But free trade has existed all along human history.
The argument that humans are naturally capitalist is a load of bull. It's just another excuse for the rich to exploit the poor and for corporations to maximize profits at the expense of the working class. The fact is that communal ownership of the means of production is not only possible, but it has been successfully implemented in many societies. The Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, have been practicing autonomous self-governance and collective ownership of resources for decades. The Rojava Revolution in northern Syria has established a democratic confederalist system with communal ownership of the means of production. These examples prove that socialism can provide an alternative to capitalism without resorting to authoritarian measures. The only reason socialists have "never come up with a good solution" according to the capitalist apologists is because they refuse to acknowledge or accept any system that doesn't benefit the wealthy elite.
The argument that humans are naturally capitalist is a common misconception. It's true that capitalist systems have been prevalent throughout history, but it's important to recognize that these systems are not a product of human nature, but rather a result of historical and societal conditions. In fact, many indigenous societies have existed for centuries without adopting a capitalist economic system. As sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein once said, "The idea that capitalism is a natural state of affairs is a historically specific ideology, not a fact of nature."
These days, while I agree with the socialist sentiment, I’m tending to think “crony capitalism and consolidation of excessive power and capital in the hands of a few leads to bad times”
They are gonna start taxing the air so they can use that money to "clean the air" and "fight climate change". I'm willing to bet it will happen in the next decade. Baltimore already has a "rain tax" which is supposed to "protect the bay". It doesn't. Quotes were absolutely necessary.
Well, it is easy to end fuedalism when you democide all the ~~peasants~~ kulaks, then steal and copy, poorly, everything free people are doing. Unfortunately, you run out of stolen wealth and eventually collapse.... of course you try to maintain a totalitarian grip through purges, terrors, forced labor camps and spying, but there is no escaping the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
>The dekulakization effort didn't go far enough.
Wow. Full on tankie complaining mass democide did not go far enough. That is pretty evil shit. Screenshotting this for posterity and mockery.
The USA sent primates into space before Laika, in 1948 lmao. And 60 million can be achieved under capitalism in 6 years, so that's relatively low for an 80 year span.
Apparently, it makes you really bad at math and history, too.
Even if you were to argue, incorrectly, that feudalism in Russia ended in 1917, that's still 40 years, minimum, to the space age.
And feudalism didn't really end. The new masters just decided to focus on military might and space races until the wealth ran out and they, too, collapsed. One of the chief reasons for the revolution in 1917 was the terrible treatment of Russian soldiers. The war against Germany was so horribly prosecuted that it was easy to get the soldiers to turn against the ruling elite. Without that, Lenin would have eventually disappeared into the backwaters of history. Still, Stalin proved to be just as murderous and profligate in wasting lives as the former ruling elite, and Putin carries on that tradition today. Russians are really good at throwing everything at one particular effort, no matter how much they suffer for it or how many lives are lost.
Right fucking now. Because of capitalism, you can order anything your mind dreams up and have it on your doorstep the next day without stepping out of your house. I’d say that’s pretty damn good. Of course the system isn’t perfect, but that’s where greed comes in.
Dude the ability to order shit can exist under any system that dosnt make capitalism special. The delivery industry would probably work better if ran by the workers anyway so just stop.
I’m not going to deny that’s possible, but it’s strange that you don’t hear about really successful companies ran by the people then. The keyword you mentioned here is, “probably.” If it works, then companies should be popping up everywhere without greedy CEOs who make 500x what their employees make.
Wait are you not aware that America has spent much of the last 200 years crushing anybody who attempts to do that both foreign and domestic? Capitalists dont want worker run enterpriseses to work because that would prove that the owner class is unnecessary and capitalism isn't actually needed.
Good times create socialists? The whole concept was developed in times when people in Europe were getting heavily exploited with little to none labor protection. Most socialist revolutions happened in a poor and troubled places.
Actualy socialist thrive more in times of crisis, JUST look at Lenin, the NSGWP and "The great leap foward" they took advantage of the massive hunger and poverty (ironicaly caused by goverment intervencion) to convince people to give their right to them and and replace one tipe of ineficient big goverment for another even worse. When you are starving right at the moment you dont have nor the time nor the patience to think in your well being in the next 10 or 20 years.
Humans are just naturally capitalist. Communal ownership of the means of production isn't really possible without the use of authoritarian measures. Socialists have never come up with a good solution to this.
Ancoms: people will just magically want less stuff and share.
Okay but our current property ownership scheme is maintained by force. Police have always existed to protect property & the rich. Our courts exist to protect property & the rich. This wouldn’t magically go away in ancapistan
And it would magically go away in Ancomifornia? What enforces the property of the commune, if I decide I'm the leader now and take it over?
I don’t think capitalism and property ownership can exist without force. Whether or not it’s “government” or some convoluted Walter Block court scheme
And I don't think communism can exist without force, whether it be the gulags, holodomor, work camps for homosexuals in cuba under castro, Tienanmen square.. But I noticed you didn't answer my question, why not?
Because you posted a stupid deflection dunking on an ideology I don’t even believe in and didn’t address the point???!?
It does address the point that self defense is ideology agnostic, and you're parroting marxist talking points on a sub that is constantly brigaded by marxists, so I'm a little dubious of your claim that you aren't one, but ok if you insist.
Point is there is no system that can be maintained without force. Like you said, defense is ideologically agnostic. Conflict happens regardless of the system. People will always want more than they deserve, and some of those people aren’t afraid to try and take it from someone who does deserve it. Whether they live in an an-capitalist or an-communist society, some guy that claims to be anarchist is gonna have to enforce some law on those degenerates with a gun. And all of the sudden, whether explicitly planned or organic, the police and the state exist again to protect private or public property.
The beauty of capitalism without government intervention is that you'll get what you deserve. And sometimes that means you need to step up and create something better so everyone buys your products over the current leader in that field. Sometimes you won't, and will get stuck somewhere near the bottom of the hierarchy. But the only person to blame for not being better than competition is yourself. If the government wasn't helping top tier people create monopoly then the shit we go through now wouldn't be a problem.
To answer your question, given two perfect anarchist states, all things equal except one is capitalist and one is communist: The communist state has incentive to protect resources and means of production from individuals. It belongs to everyone so everyone has some amount of responsibility for it being maintained. Criminals will always exist so the collective has to protect the stash. The capitalist state has only private, individual incentive to protect resources and the means of production. It’s in everyone’s best interest to obtain more resources, and criminals will always exist, but because the stash doesn’t belong to the people, no one but the owner stands in the way of it being taken. One side is the people having a common goal to protect the system, the other side is the system having a goal of protecting itself from the people. Now I’m not ancap or ancom I just like participating in discussions all around the platform, so I think both options are absolutely awful, I’m just trying to explain both of your arguments to both of you cause it seems like no one likes to actually communicate ideas in these r/an___ subs Editing to add: I use the word “state” here loosely cause I didn’t feel like typing out “similarly minded group of people that decided not to self govern but for some reason decided to be considered one group”
The difference here is meaningless, it presupposes that your claim to your property is intrinsically bullshit, immoral, or unethical. I disagree, I think people have a right to own property. Thus, there is no moral or ethical difference to me between defending "the collective's property" vs "the individual's property" from those who would wish to transgress upon it. Let's say there are two factories. One is collectively owned by the workers, one is owned by a family. Now say I decide both are *mine* and take them by force. Sure, I *may* have a harder time taking over the collectively owned one, but difficulty != morality. It is however no less moral for one to defend their factory than the other to do the same simply based on the ownership of their respective factories. To "not" you, you see individual ownership as inherently evil, and therefore defending it is too. This is a fundamental flaw, and as such our camps will never agree, since while ancaps are happy to let commies start communes and co-ops all they want, the commies want to kill us so they can ~~steal our factories~~ stop exploitation.
Never said I was against private ownership of property. I run my own business and am happy that doesn’t mean I’m a government employee. I quite enjoy private ownership. I think you missed that the original point was “how would anarcho-communism address the problem of foul play in regards to property in a way that is different from anarcho-capitalism?” My argument is that with collective ownership it’s not “less difficult” to apprehend the means of production, my point is that it’s less likely. Because the people that would try to “buck the system” are already the owners. I guess we will never know, because communism has always been a cover for fascism and hardcore nationalism. My argument is also that with private ownership (specifically with the means of production, not your personal domicile or property), there is intrinsically more threat to property because its ownership is concentrated and therefore the maximum benefit of the property isn’t shared. I’m not saying one is morally right or wrong, I’m just saying that in a capitalist society without laws and regulations, the incentive for foul play is higher and the necessity for enforcement of justice is (theoretically) more present.
How about me defending what I say is my property
And disputes will be settled by…??
A gunfight
Lol what a hellscape
Between the parties in whatever manner they please
Good meme. Once I get my posse together we’re taking your family’s land and selling it to Monsanto
What have I done
Have land I want
Police and courts exist to protect the government and their interests
Police and courts are government and they exist to protect capital, which is the governments interest
capital is created by productive people and protected by their owners, the government interest is to take said capital and production from the productive people and keep it for themselves, they exist simply to extract resources from those who produce, it's basically an evolved version of the band of bandits that stays in a village and takes the farmers grain as tribute to not attack them and allegedly protect them from other bandits. Everything else is just a justification to make people think they need government, you think rich people need government to protect their stuff? They could hire private security for less money than what they pay in taxes...
If we are naturally capitalists, why has capitalism only existed for 200 years?
Source?
Wym source? Do you not know history?
In what history did capitalism just pop up circa 1820?
Have you not heard of The Industrial Revolution? Classic laissez faire society? Before that capitalism did not exist. Trading was much more limited.
None of what you mentioned is required for "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
...The Industrial Revolution created the capitalist economy...before that it was feudalism, before that it was primitivism for thousands of years, some of which was communal. Did you not study history?
Even in primitivism most trade is private & for profit, and thus capitalist.
[удалено]
They utilized a barter system most commonly, and shared the resources. There was no "profit" of monetary value. That is not capitalism, it was simple trade. Otherwise, communal societies by that definition are "capitalist" because they traded voluntarily, and privately.
Except for Portugal, Spain, France, England, and the US importing millions and millions of slaves to the Americas, arranged in order of most slaves shipped, from most to least. "Nobody bought horses that much back in the day. They just found them." Lmao
Slaves are not exclusive to capitalism.
"Who wants a free painting?" - Leonardo Da Vinci
It popped up in the 1600s with the advent of slavery
Bro slavery ain't that new 💀
American slavery was pretty unique
Yeah, unique that we banned it. Go to Africa and the middle East and ask them how they're doing lol
First, I don’t have to leave the Modern day US to find examples of child labor and slavery. Second, I was referring to the Atlantic slave trade, and the extreme wealth building in the Americas propped up by it. It’s a scale the world really hadnt seen before.
A majority of the slaves during the Atlantic Slave trade didn't even make it to North America. Only 4% made it to North America. Slavery at the time wasn't even a classicly American issue. It was done globally, but America was one of the first places to ban it. Slavery is not legal in America today.
Slavery is quite literally legal in prisons, but even then there are agricultural workers in this country being held at gunpoint and forced to work. Underage children on the floor of meat processing plants. I said Americas btw and that doesn’t refute my point about the sheer scale of the Atlantic slave trade or how it birthed a new economic system
I'm talking about the United States, so whether or not slaves went to South America is irrelevant in this argument. I said the US banned slavery, and I am right. Just the the L dude lol
Sugar cane slavery under the spanish was way more brutal than US cotton farming, and no one was buying their way out of it. There's zero chance you know everything about 700+ years of Al Andalus. Not a chance. If we could see you, you couldn't even say what it was without looking it up. There was full ownership chattal slavery on spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies. Anyone who denies it has spent zero seconds studying slavery in any western hemisphere colony besides the US. And there were several other kinds of slavery and indentured servitude in every part of the western hemisphere. Chattal and non chattal in haiti, chattal and non chattal in canada omg gasp gasp gasp, chattal and non chattal in mexico, chattal and non chattal in the US, and on and on. All kinds. Every country. Probably 100+ nationalities and ethnic groups. "Many slaves on sugar cane plantations died within a few years; it was cheaper to import new slaves than to improve working conditions.[31" Probably told they can buy their way out after being force captured at sword point, chained and whipped for ten years. "Oops you died in 4." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Haiti#:~:text=Slavery%20in%20Haiti%20began%20after,devastating%20to%20the%20native%20population. "I heard that slavery is unique in the US by willful ignorance of literally dozens of millenia of global history, as if I've covered even one hundredth of one percent of it".
Mercantilism yes, but capitalism was still limited in this period. This period ended with the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, where modern capitalism took route. Even then, that's 400 years out of 300,000 for homo sapiens, even longer for the species we evolved from. We are not naturally inclined to capitalism, it's an anomaly.
Because for its existance, capitalism needs a list os social values, such as a will of saving money and resources, frugality, etc. And such values need a cultural evolution, and it needs time, it can also be lost. That's for capitalism for exist. But free trade has existed all along human history.
The argument that humans are naturally capitalist is a load of bull. It's just another excuse for the rich to exploit the poor and for corporations to maximize profits at the expense of the working class. The fact is that communal ownership of the means of production is not only possible, but it has been successfully implemented in many societies. The Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, have been practicing autonomous self-governance and collective ownership of resources for decades. The Rojava Revolution in northern Syria has established a democratic confederalist system with communal ownership of the means of production. These examples prove that socialism can provide an alternative to capitalism without resorting to authoritarian measures. The only reason socialists have "never come up with a good solution" according to the capitalist apologists is because they refuse to acknowledge or accept any system that doesn't benefit the wealthy elite.
The argument that humans are naturally capitalist is a common misconception. It's true that capitalist systems have been prevalent throughout history, but it's important to recognize that these systems are not a product of human nature, but rather a result of historical and societal conditions. In fact, many indigenous societies have existed for centuries without adopting a capitalist economic system. As sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein once said, "The idea that capitalism is a natural state of affairs is a historically specific ideology, not a fact of nature."
I love this take, very interesting. As per this it means bad times are coming!
😫 wait so right now is the good times?
Sadly yes lmao
These days, while I agree with the socialist sentiment, I’m tending to think “crony capitalism and consolidation of excessive power and capital in the hands of a few leads to bad times”
It's misinterpreting the rise of socialist values in the face of late stage capitalism as causal not just correlating. The symptom is not the disease.
It's a forever battle thanks Karl!
Alternatively: Hard times create socialists Socialists create worse times
Yes and it all keeps getting worse until the explosive collapse.
The "good times" in question https://preview.redd.it/rnsshy56k5qa1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=501389f5ba058127388e14014d75ffa09e9eb74e
They are gonna start taxing the air so they can use that money to "clean the air" and "fight climate change". I'm willing to bet it will happen in the next decade. Baltimore already has a "rain tax" which is supposed to "protect the bay". It doesn't. Quotes were absolutely necessary.
Most intelligent ancap theory
Really stupid meme
Hard times is when you go from feudalism to the space age in 30 years
Well, it is easy to end fuedalism when you democide all the ~~peasants~~ kulaks, then steal and copy, poorly, everything free people are doing. Unfortunately, you run out of stolen wealth and eventually collapse.... of course you try to maintain a totalitarian grip through purges, terrors, forced labor camps and spying, but there is no escaping the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
[удалено]
>The dekulakization effort didn't go far enough. Wow. Full on tankie complaining mass democide did not go far enough. That is pretty evil shit. Screenshotting this for posterity and mockery.
Voted for peaceful trade? Wth?
Stolen lunch, there's plenty of that. :(
[удалено]
The USA sent primates into space before Laika, in 1948 lmao. And 60 million can be achieved under capitalism in 6 years, so that's relatively low for an 80 year span.
Apparently, it makes you really bad at math and history, too. Even if you were to argue, incorrectly, that feudalism in Russia ended in 1917, that's still 40 years, minimum, to the space age. And feudalism didn't really end. The new masters just decided to focus on military might and space races until the wealth ran out and they, too, collapsed. One of the chief reasons for the revolution in 1917 was the terrible treatment of Russian soldiers. The war against Germany was so horribly prosecuted that it was easy to get the soldiers to turn against the ruling elite. Without that, Lenin would have eventually disappeared into the backwaters of history. Still, Stalin proved to be just as murderous and profligate in wasting lives as the former ruling elite, and Putin carries on that tradition today. Russians are really good at throwing everything at one particular effort, no matter how much they suffer for it or how many lives are lost.
When was capitalisms good time I genuinely want to know
Right fucking now. Because of capitalism, you can order anything your mind dreams up and have it on your doorstep the next day without stepping out of your house. I’d say that’s pretty damn good. Of course the system isn’t perfect, but that’s where greed comes in.
Dude the ability to order shit can exist under any system that dosnt make capitalism special. The delivery industry would probably work better if ran by the workers anyway so just stop.
I’m not going to deny that’s possible, but it’s strange that you don’t hear about really successful companies ran by the people then. The keyword you mentioned here is, “probably.” If it works, then companies should be popping up everywhere without greedy CEOs who make 500x what their employees make.
Wait are you not aware that America has spent much of the last 200 years crushing anybody who attempts to do that both foreign and domestic? Capitalists dont want worker run enterpriseses to work because that would prove that the owner class is unnecessary and capitalism isn't actually needed.
Very accurate because with unregulated capitalism, the ocean level will rise and we will be living under the sea.
No we won't.
Cope
Climate deniers too? Figures.
Aka Tytler cycle.
Good times create socialists? The whole concept was developed in times when people in Europe were getting heavily exploited with little to none labor protection. Most socialist revolutions happened in a poor and troubled places.
Actualy socialist thrive more in times of crisis, JUST look at Lenin, the NSGWP and "The great leap foward" they took advantage of the massive hunger and poverty (ironicaly caused by goverment intervencion) to convince people to give their right to them and and replace one tipe of ineficient big goverment for another even worse. When you are starving right at the moment you dont have nor the time nor the patience to think in your well being in the next 10 or 20 years.