Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don’t think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they’re using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they’re using the word wrong.

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn’t a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.

Trans reactionism sounds political to me. Is it not?

https://hexos.com/ is also trying to be a low skill low effort version of truenas, but it does have a one time payment. I didn’t think you’d need a nas specific OS for just one storage laptop though, it’s more meant for large home storage servers.

Also, highly recommend arcane, great series.

I would argue the meme is non political, since it’s just a pun on the word. Hence why two different people can have different views on what is political or not.

Is this political for example? People would say both ways.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/42910186

Another example is fictional character relationships. Are the lesbian relationships in arcane political for example?

Is being trans political for example.

The source is available, right? You just can’t fork it to include ads? Or you can’t fork it at all?

You using private capital as synonymous with powerful people? Rich people to tend to be powerful, but they’re not the only ones.

And are you saying the treaty of versailles and it’s fallout were part of the conditions for fascism, and were capitalist in nature?

Whether a king is above the law or not is the difference between a democratic or absolute monarchy. He thinks he’s above the law, so I guess he’s shooting for absolute monarchy.

Wouldn’t it be a derivative of oligarchy? Fascism doesn’t care about the free market, only the well being of those at the top. You could argue oligarchy is a derivative of capitalism, but I don’t think they’re synonymous.

Is that a real trump tweet? That’s scary.