Only half a million, but still!
Stomp summoned this book from the depths of my memory. Big things in store for those big paws!
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.
Good video by Dan Murrel on the subject. There is a colonel of truth in that there has been a race to the bottom for film studios. But this is unlikely to help the situation, and will likely only lead to fewer movies overall.
Why will oxygen levels go up? If anything, I'd think more oxygen being tied up in CO2 would cause O2 levels to go down.
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.
I think [email protected] would be a better fit, but it is interesting!