Hovering my foot several inches above a live bear trap is also not being in the bear trap.
You better believe I’m keeping my focus on not stepping down on it, and it will be unpleasant to constantly think about it and micromanage not stepping down. My foot is not caught, the bear trap isn’t “real” or “really hurting my foot”, yet this still takes a real toll.
New young white workforce.
Maybe all the sanctions on the country cutting it off from basically everyone else has something to do with it, assuming it’s even true.
She’s just a grifter, that’s it. It feels pretty clear she cares more about her business, success, and wealth more than Charlie… but that’s totally fair because I can empathize with not liking Charlie Kirk.
It’s similiar to 9/11.
If it happened, it would be blowback from what the government has been doing abroad.
It can be both of those things: a cause for valid anger, and consequence of government actions.
This is why you aren’t a billionaire. You aren’t a sociopathic husk of a human.
While I agree with you, this post doesn’t really have any framing of our duopoly. Dragging this post into electoral politics doesn’t seem constructive
I’m suspect of this article, but let’s take it at face value.
Tibetan society before was like 95%-5% peasants to slavers ratio. It was a fuedal society until it was reuinified.Whatever modern day slavery exists in China, there are so many places that are worse offenders including the United States.
This is just history and not up for debate?
Slavers are savages
There isn’t a genocide. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know how valid the “cultural” genocide claims are. However, the article just says they closed a school and enrolled some more people in other schools. I’m also saying the fuedal peasant society culture was right to be forcibly removed. Unless you think that’s good?
That depends, some parts of culture are actively harmful. The closing of a school for reasons unknown and giving people education is not genocide.
Tibet is very similar to the confederacy in the United States. I absolutely think that we should have done more to reeducate a deeply racist society and it wasn’t imperialism to re-unify the country. The same applies to Tibet.
The culture in question? One built on slavery!
It’s OK. I’m just describing these systems from a Marxist lens. As in, I’m not being prescriptive, but descriptive of how these processes work and their definitions. Your confusion is normal as there’s a lot of incentive to obfuscate to protect those with wealth and private property. It’s also not exactly simple either.
And to clarify what I meant, it was more anti-“people who own capital / owner” rather than anti-“capitalist system” exactly. The most anti capitalist system would be the workers themselves owning the tools, buildings, property, etc; collectively and with democratic control of the workplace. Obviously the above described where workers collectively bargain is closer in that direction but the capital owner still ultimately remains in control of the company and assets.
Profit definitionally is value extracted from laborers. I own a factory. For every $40 of materials, and $40 dollars of labor, I can sell a product for $100 dollars. I definitionally made profit of $20 simply for owning the property it happens in.
You’ll notice there is an incentive to pay less to labor in order to make more profit. Labor wants to work the least amount of effort for the most amount of money, and capitalists want the most labor for the least amount of money. It’s an adversarial relationship. Any gains to claw back more profits will necessarily be adversarial and technically anti-capitalist.
There’s only one goal, profit / capital maximization. Everything else is secondary or in service of that end, such as efficiency.
A for-profit health insurance industry is deeply inefficient but very profitable for example.
He was a socialist at least.
And if he was, crazy he would have liked the “sharing is caring” ideology over the “fuck you, got mine” ideology.
Working for a wage is very capitalist. By that I mean that capitalist owns the capital and rents labor hours for less than what will be made from them.
Wage labor is one of the core tenents of capitalism.
But what if a bunch of defense contractors made a ton of money huh? Didn’t think of that did you?
Famously the UN is a charity organization and that’s it’s only intended function. No need to criticize or consider any other implications of the UN.