I wonder if this’d be the same as a map of drive times to a hospital. I guess this version more highlights the outliers?

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.

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.

I wonder what that red spot in Russia is

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.

What does the undergrowth of an oak hickory Forest look like? People can plant the trees, but how do you get the undergrowth?

Have you broken a pencil tip? I wouldn’t want to breath that in after it goes flying.

What do you mean? Graphite can be fine or sharp, you saying it’s fine to breathe in? I know I wouldn’t want to breath in a broken tip of a pencil.

Plus, inhaling graphite dust since it doesn’t fall doesn’t sound fun.