Well, since they don't believe in democracy, I suppose they won't be too concerned when their opinions are discarded. What do they want, representation?

We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.

Your argument works just as easily for Kings, Slavery, and every other horrible thing humans have done to one another. Capitalism is not in any way, shape, or form necessary to human existence. It would be like saying that Prime Time TV is "Nature" and worthy of almighty consideration. I pray I get to live to see the end of all of the above in my life time.

I've said my argument about as cleanly as I can! It's a complicated topic, and I encourage you to continue reading about it.

To this, however:

> Separate line of thought (but to the same end), curious what you think: If humans are nature, and humans have capitalism, is capitalism not natural?

I don't care? Cancer is natural, Bifocals aren't. I don't think it's a useful framing on the question. My opinions would be the same on capitalism if it were a plot from the moon-beings of Andromeda IX vs. it being written explicitly written into our DNA. In the context of the quote, it is meant as in "It is not an objective facet of our existence, or something we must endure."

"“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

I agree that we can do this. I do not agree that this is, strictly speaking, capitalism.

Capitalism =/= the exchange of goods, services, and capital.

Capitalism is the system that says the people who own the property constituting the critical infrastructure of an organization - the "Means of Production" - should get to make all the rules. That's it.

If I own a big beef machine that turns cows into hamburgers, it doesn't matter that I need 50 people to run it and 200 people to box and ship and sell the patties, the fact that I am the person who had enough money to buy the big beef machine means that my word is law, period. If I don't like the way they touch my big beef machine, they go away. If they don't like how unsafe the big beef machine is, too bad. Doesn't matter how much I sell the patties for - I decide how much I pay you, and I keep the rest (not exactly peer-to-peer). I own the big beef machine, so my say goes.

I agree with you that trade will exist until the end of time, and has existed since the first time Ook had something that Grog wanted and Grog decided it was too much energy to kill Ook over it.

When I say I am "Anti-capitalist", I mean (among other things) that I do not believe Capitalism specifically is the best (most productive, least ethically repulsive) means by which to engage in trade.

None of these opinions relate to trade or even the concept of capital itself, but rather the means by which we organize it.

To the original quote: It is hard to imagine the end of capitalism, because people believe capitalism is a natural facet of human nature. It is not; it is a big beef machine.

It is, at its most fundamental description, a Top-Down system of governance and ownership (I admit, probably not the way you mean, but it did tickle me).

Dragons hoarding wealth might be emergent human behavior, but, hey, so are brave knights.

As far as a tool, it's perfectly fine. A lot of my bad feelings came as a result of wanting it to be simple ("What should I work on next") but it being twisted into a series of incantations and rituals by those looking to bend it for the purposes of more and more intricate views into how we spend every moment of our day.

Citation needed

Not that there's any amount of polite progress that won't cause insane public discourse when it involves gender.

Giving birth is already not a precondition of being a woman, as the category "infertile women" exist.

> I don't like bullies, but when they do the "made you flinch" thing, part of me wants to smirk.

You like bullies, actually - you just don't like thinking you like bullies.

Now imagine there is a Super-boss, who is exactly like the "people running the business" (attribution needed), but one level above them.

If the Super Boss were to look at the situation, I think it'd be pretty obvious that the issue would be "The people organizing the company at the highest level" who are responsible for the failures of the company. That may involve over-hiring, which is itself a bad practice that causes unnecessary pain and (personal, financial) suffering, and would be a good cause to fire them for almost crashing my beautiful super-company that I, the Super-boss, super-founded.

You're saying that if we return the Super-boss to the realm of the fictional, then suddenly it isn't the C-suite's fault anymore?

If we're discussing should, then yeah, their heads should be the first to roll. I agree its idealistic to imagine them having the sort of decency this requires, but I agree it should be the case!

It was, more or less, the same narrative arc as Bitcoin, and was (is) headed for a crash.

That said, I've spent a few weeks with augment, and it is revelatory, certainly. All the marketing - aimed at a suite I have no interest in - managed to convince me it was something it wasn't. It isn't a replacement, any more than a power drill is a replacement for a carpenter.

What it is, is very helpful. "The world's most fully functioning scaffolding script", an upgrade from copilot's "the world's most fully functioning tab-completer". I appreciate it usefulness as a force multiplier, but I am already finding corners and places where I'd just prefer to do it myself. And this is before we get into the craft of it all - I am not excited by the pitch "worse code, faster", but the utility is undeniable in this capitalistic hell planet, and I'm not a huge fan of writing SQL queries anyway, so here we are!

I'm trying to say that the emperor is nude, and you are arguing that the threads might be so small as to not see them - or, rather, that the Media said he was naked, so while the president claims that he is wearing clothes, and that might be evidence he is deluded, his open ass in the wind not evidence of his pro-nudity leanings.

(This ignores the fact that he rose from the republican party, one that has been operating in full defiance of open democracy since bush v. gore. Republcans don't want "the will of the people", otherwise they wouldn't push so hard for voter suppression.)

It's a claim so baffling that it makes me assume you aren't operating in good faith.

This is either willful ignorance or something else.

DOGE is headed by an unelected official, from a party with not a lot of Pro-democracy leanings to spare right now.