https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html

https://opensource.org/license/unlicense

these two institutions endorse the license

A good time to ask this question after it’s used for good and we have politicians in office who aren’t against the will of the people, not before

This is what early reddit was like honestly. I don’t think lemmy will hit reddit’s peak popularity but I don’t think anyone wants any lemmy instance near that popular

I say we look to and learn from places like rojava before we look to those with gulags when we theorize political and economic systems.

I fundamentally disagree that capitalism is like every other system ever done before, that is all I am saying. I need evidence that capitalism being the same as every other system is true, and I lack it. This is part of why I posed my original question. Why are people seemingly not be able to fathom a single system that can replace capitalism?

a few people hold the capital

Capitalism does not enforce a minimum amount of population holding capital, so it can be reduced to 1. Feature, not a bug.

Capitalism is the same as every other system that’s gone before

Every other system? How many systems do you think we have observed in all of human history? What do you believe to be the earliest system ever devised?

No other system ever increased the minimum amount of people owning capital to be higher than a few?

in capitalism, there are zero limitations on property. Human slavery is labor capital in capitalism (private prisons, 13th amendment). You can own people and their labor in capitalism. By you, I mean you mr nougat, with enough capital, can own immigrants today to sell their indentured servitude right this very second in these united states of america and capitalism will not only let you do it, it will reward you with government protection in the form of profit, and the cops and guards and laws to protect YOUR humans.

Or are you saying thats not feasible within the framework of capitalism and I am just not getting it?

If you are not getting it, maybe you are too poor and lower class to realize how little capital you have in capitalism that you cannot fathom how much capital means power in a capitalist society, a society in which capital is authority.

if we both pointed guns at each others head, he would be pointing a gun at my head like you stated, but I’d also be pointing a gun at his. Why would either of us shut up in this equally threatening situation where neither are obviously in control? This is literally MAD theory btw. You are arguing countries with nukes would rather nuke each other than talk it out if you think two humans would rather kill each other over whatever made up scenario you invented to make your point on violence than try to resolve it without dying. I’m sorry, but people don’t just kill because they’re hungry. They’ll beg first. They’ll steal. Murder is often a last resort man, and any case that you may dream of, I’m sorry but capitalism isn’t a better solution to it any more than an honest attempt at democratic socialism.

We need to get money out of politics

A) America is a capitalist system. B) In America, the law is for sale.

Capitalism is a system that doesn’t prevent the sale of law. Nothing in capitalist theory prevented the sale of law from happening. It literally was put up for sale and is now available to those with capital (aka, not you or me). Capitalism is the system of America. Capitalism allows the sale of law. Capitalism supports the sale of law, and the only thing stopping it is supposed to be democracy, but that’s failing at the moment.

All of this to say, money in politics is a observably feature of capitalism, not a bug. This is a failure of democracy that’s supposed to reign in capitalism but when so-called democratic leaders choose to not act, capitalism wins. This is not a surprise at all, because capitalism wants everything to be purchasable, even power and authority.

Why does anyone ever sell land? Maybe because they’re in massive debt and the only thing they have left is a family christmas tree farm that’s 100 acres. Maybe they got high and chose to. It honestly has no merit to the debate, I encourage you to engage with the questions posed, specifically the final one.

“the status quo (democratic capitalism) must be maintained” got it!

you didn’t ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?

Not if he’s surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can’t prevent that either.

You may be moving goal posts. Who cares why the sell their land, capitalism doesn’t forbid someone for doing it for fun or any reason. Capitalism doesn’t prevent it, therefore there is no way to prevent it within capitalism—this is a fundamental truth of capitalism, like it or not. Nothing stops, in a capitalist society, a human being from attaining all the wealth in the world: that is a valid dream within capitalism. Thankfully capitalism hasn’t seen it through yet, but it’s absolutely possible. This is a feature of capitalism. It must be made a bug.

Do you think democratic socialism fundamentally, foundationally, has a stance on what is and isnt property, and who can or cannot own it, and what is or is not ownership of property, and what level of violence is or is not tolerable in defense of property? If socialism does have quantifiable stances on these things, is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest socialism makes an attempt to address the issue of the original post?

Democratic Capitalism says anyone can own property, anything and anyone can be property (slavery is state sponsored and is allowed within democratic capitalism), and it allows murder in defense of any property. Can a cop kill someone looting a grocery store? Do you believe such a thing be allowed fundamentally allowed in a democratic socialist economic system? Which system do you think would logically lead to a more peaceful planet—the status quo or democratic socialism?

Let’s try out democratic socialism instead of democratic capitalism, why not? I love America and my neighbors of all races and religions and creeds, let’s make it great with socialism.

The real fantasy is believing capitalism will usher in a semblance of peace across this Earth, yes even for those brown and black people in the americas, Middle East, pacific islands, and Africa. I’m not so sure why you believe it’s the only way to make it happen.

Any economic system that has no safeguard to the “can someone own the Earth in your system?” problem is not a valid one in my opinion.

Socialism attempts to solve the problem by stating “the Earth isn’t ownable under socialism, and anyone who tries to own a piece of it is met with resistance. Anyone who tries to own a piece of land by violent means is resisted by violent means”. This is the nature of socialism and its theory on ownership. Is this not something that would benefit the Earth compared to the existing capitalist system that is only limited by democracy, which has historically used, and is currently using, systemic state-sponsored violence and regime change to achieve its goals?

Anti-trust laws prevented the violence that capitalism caused in the middle east the past 30 years? When did they prevent it? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are preventing this from happening in the modern era? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are more effective in creating a peaceful world compared to just trying democratic socialism (as opposed to the status quo of democratic capitalism prevalent in the west)?

These are literally critical questions. I’m asking “what prevents it”. If “nothing” prevents it then nothing prevents it and maybe we should try to figure out ways to prevent it before it becomes a reality because “nothing prevents it”.

No doubt, but I’m talking to people who care about the term capitalism so much that they’ll be considered “pro capitalism.” That’s fine if you’re not a capitalist, but I’m not trying to argue that people who are already not pro capitalism should be against it, I’m trying to argue that people who are pro capitalism should be against it.