Wait, then actual evidence becomes useless!

Nyan Cat, but different

Dang, that looks good :)

YT: Revanced & Firefox w/ extensions

Papers: SciHub ofc

Books: libgen, or zlib occasionally

Manga: Tachiyomi

Anime: 9anime usually

Anything else: consult the megathread :)

Sure, but at least companies can be competed with and if they get too big, are subject to government scrutiny. On the other hand, its really hard to control a large population of landowners and speculators who have a personal incentive to do whatever they can to increase the perceived price of their owned land.

If landlords don't want to hemorrhage money by not having a paying tenant on their land, they will lower their prices. The problem with land is that we can't create more of it. It is not a commodity supply can be artificially restricted to the detriment of the rest of society. If land holders constantly lost money for not having their land generate wealth, there would be no incentive to artificially reduce supply.

I thought cities in the Netherlands were required to have public transit?

Install the flatpak version perhaps?

I've heard stuff like "communists want community", but perhaps we are in different social environments. I will agree though that the manipulation of some terms might be more extreme than others.

Political conservatism obeys none of the other dictionary definitions. It's just a label. It's the label chosen by generations of influential public figures whose general philosophy is "Well someone has to be the king."

Isn't this kinda true of most politically-associated labels? Communism, socialism, capitalism, egalitarianism, progressivism... they can all be thought of as general ideas, but when someone actually uses them, they could be referring to a more specific concept, or twisting the idea a bit, or referring to a specific person's definition of the idea and its kinda hard to know how to interpret it...

What about capitalism requires infinite growth? And what does it require infinite growth in? What happens when growth stagnates in a capitalist system? Does it suddenly not become capitalist anymore?

So you are defining an ambiguous term in order to better criticise it? That makes sense, but it might not convince people who have different definitions 🤔

Like I for example would consider a Co-Op where the employees own the company / have voting power over how its run to be a part of a capitalist system, hell, I'd even consider someone who makes a living as an artist where they own all their tools to be a part of a capitalist system... although I suppose that could also be considered socialist to some degree because the artist "owns" the means of production?

These definitions are kind of difficult to use...