your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.

news flash: if you do not own capital, capitalism’s essential function is not to improve your material condition, but that of the capital owning class.

edit: civility

argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I’m not going to engage that.

you’ve yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism (which requires scarcity to the extent that it will create it where there need be none, and demands endless quarterly growth within a limited system) is a solution to the environmental destruction to which it contributes.

it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.

private ownership of capital is a race to the bottom, leading inevitably to unsustainable extraction of natural resources. The latter won’t be halted or reversed without abolishing the former.

we need power to be distributed horizontally, not continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer actors.

the non profit industrial complex serves to launder the reputations of the ownership class without meaningfully addressing oppressive systems or threatening the status quo.

landlords ought not exist

“…frustrated at Britain’s attempts to help Ireland during the Irish famine…”

lol. was this written by an English aristocrat?

what is generational wealth?

I’m an anarchist.

Lenin coined the term state capitalism, replacing private ownership of the means with a new class heirarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust beaurocratic state apparatus.

No state has ever liberated the working class.

you’re not entirely wrong, I’m just not interested in performing the emotional labor of handholding.

incredibly simplistic perspective, and intellectually dishonest; we traded monarchy for a dictatorship of the capital owning class.

muh glorious people’s boot