🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 on Nostr: npub167e4r…h6xnc Wrong on literally all accounts… You can’t have billionaires ...
npub167e4rdf7y7skwzt03hruxzpme7qms05pxu2fcthq6y3ag6hzrkgsnh6xnc (npub167e…6xnc)
Wrong on literally all accounts… You can’t have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.
Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society. You can’t have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing. You can’t have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).
npub1tpsxqun7jgcc8m4au2f6ta9ndxjww4gfmdlcygd3p9r2rcuh35qsk69rmt (npub1tps…9rmt)
Wrong on literally all accounts… You can’t have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.
Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society. You can’t have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing. You can’t have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).
npub1tpsxqun7jgcc8m4au2f6ta9ndxjww4gfmdlcygd3p9r2rcuh35qsk69rmt (npub1tps…9rmt)