> taking power away from the capitalist class

An obvious and apparently irresolvable contradiction.

Capitalist power is inherently anarchic and isn't power at all. It's simply order emerging from the anarchy of the market. But the ability to take that power away from them, no matter how you measure it, itself falls into the category of "too much power" with wide margin. And with this amount of power there will be no change of hands that hold it.

Prices haven't risen THAT much and are quite affordable. And if you look at the improved quality of upscalers (DLLS 4.5 for example), gaming is now more affordable than ever, despite the increased cost of components.

Of course, the 5090 prices are insane, as are for SOME memory models, but that's nothing new and represents a fairly small market share.

> When I started building gaming pcs, the top top card was 750$ (NZD)

When I started building gaming PC, the top $700 cards didn't even provide comfortable performance or graphics. Back then, you were supposed to have several of this connected SLI or somethin. And even then, it wasn't always reliable, and it resulted in stuttering, lags, and graphical artifacts (in cases when it worked). Today, even $700 graphics cards are a much better product from a user perspective than the high-end cards of that time (and that's not even taking into account that $700 cards back then were much more expensive).

In terms of gaining political support, being a victim in the modern world is very advantageous. The more of your civilians die unjustly, the more the media will portray you as a great and brave leader. There is nothing hilarious about this, only cynicism of the leaders of the country.

The climate is changing in a positive direction for farming. Farming is easier now than ever before. There's literally no chance of food shortages. Unless, of course, there's another attempt at building socialism.

Or alternatively, we can leave Ray20 alone and not force him to pay for the treatment of a 200 kg fatties with the illegal motorcycle racing and wingsuit jumping hobbies.

> companies that are net negative to society

It is fatties who are net negative to society, not companies.

It's always amazing how fatties can shift responsibility onto others. The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read.

I don't think it's a matter of propaganda. We're talking about totalitarian dictatorships on both sides of the barricades, where such communication with relatives on the other side have very real risks of decades in prison or even death.

Or the exact opposite. Not every institutional experience is good and useful. Some are quite the opposite. I mean, term limits are one of the most common democratic institutions for precisely this reason. We WANT some knowledge and experience to walk out the door.

This is effective. Therefore, normalization of this plays into the workers' hands, gives them information, and gives economic advantage to honest agents.

I mean, you could compare it to any non-capitalist society, where such treatment of workers is declared unacceptable. But what does this translate into in reality? Such strategies are still effective and provide an advantage to those actors who adhere to them. But since firing workers for their relative effectiveness contradicts the proclaimed ideology, such workers are simply accused of random crimes against the country and executed.

I don't know, but I've seen quite noticeable change.

First, you spend 20 years paying several times more for fuel and electricity because "we need to fight global warming" and "ensure energy security from those russians," and then they tell you, hey, global warming is actually worse than ever, and yeah, we are dependent on the russians.

If we demonstrate scientific honesty and begin to apply the same level of techniques that are used to obtain the result of "10,000 times fewer deaths than coal per megawatt", we can come to the conclusion that even a small accident at a small nuclear power plant can destroy life on planet Earth as a phenomenon.

I mean, when we get Chernobyl 2.0 with hundreds of millions of victims, will the fact that it was caused by "variables that can be easily controlled" somehow make the situation any better?

In this case, we find that nuclear nuclear reactors are 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous than gas and coal power plants.

I mean, thank you, the USSR already showed this, no more is needed.

By the way, this is a good example of what happens when regulators lose to the market. By what year was initially planned the complete ban of internal combustion engine vehicles for some European countries? And where are we now?

The regulator lost, the market suffered, but survived, and many people are unhappy with the regulations.

And there are situations when the regulator wins. You know, like when the communist government came to power. And when the regulator wins, people die of hunger. All the people. Every single time.

Oh no, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying you think this is acceptable. I'm saying the elites are ALREADY doing it. And you're expressing your extreme disapproval not of the phenomenon itself, but of the hypothetical situation in which not only the elites but also ordinary people would gain access to such tools (which, of course, would also be very illegal and unacceptable. Well, until these terms still exist).

> I now think you're saying is that assassination markets would lead to fewer assassinations rather than more

I think we are rather talking about an increase in the number of assassinations to a level that literally threatens the destruction of human civilization in its modern form. Purely because of the irreversible nature of this tool acquisition by society. It's just that at one point in time, society doesn't yet have access to it, and at another, it has, and now it's everywhere, for everyone, and there's no turning back. The entire planet is living in a new socio-political-economic reality.

But this does not in any way contradict the radical democratization of society.

> so then the government

Will there be a government?

Today, any bloody dictator, tyrant, or autocrat continues to kill people en masse simply because society lacks a sufficiently effective tool to guarantee the reliable transfer of funds to one of their henchmen should the issue with him be effectively resolved