naraku360

I'm aware they're capitalist, however the economic mobility comes from their welfare programs business regulations. Afterall, social democracy is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. They are more free, but also guarantee far more benefits for workers and average citizens than we do and since much of that system is collective it would be considered partially socialist. I'm interested in the primary definition - technically the 3rd can be lumped in, as opposed to the ones you're talking about since they tend to conflict with the principles as originally intended since it's basically supposed to be extensive democracy. I think something of that nature would have to weave into capitalism before it could break out of it into something beyond social democracy. At the end of the day, I'd be fine with just landing on social democracy since that's already been pretty successful in a lot of European countries.

I'm not talking about equal pay accross the biard ir anything. There would still be hierarchies for specialized occupations and companies still have control of what wages look like, there would just be more influence from lower level workers. Legislating rules like that in the US isn't going to happen when socialized healthcare is controversial despite most places doing it successfully. The definition of it is pretty close to what I'm saying and conflicts with yours moreso. "Regulated by the community as a whole" is pretty much the opposite of big government, since the community makes the rules moreso than a select few elected officials. I'd want a federal government to put certain limits or guidelines, like how we have safety regulations that state laws have to stay in the bounds of or, like, you can't legalize murder. All the definition comes down to is more democracy,. It isn't too far off from worker co-ops. The definition misconception comes from diictators using the word to gain popularity then abusing their power, but they tend to not really do the things I'm talking about. I'm probably ideologically around anarcho-syndicalist but pragmatically more soc dem. Like a generic Sweden simp, and they still have capitalism. I don’t really want communism, though, that's way too obtuse for me.

If I advocate for a form of socialism, such as "workers seize the means of production," what I'm talking about is democratic workplaces. Traditiomally, socialism is stateless and commonly side with anti-government activism. For instance, although nazi Germany used the word "socialist" in their party name, the first group they targeted were socialists/communists who'd aligned with anarchists. A worker co-op being socialist ultimately comes down to there being a democratic structure within the company, so leaders wouls be elected by the workers and they get a say in company policies, and wages - while not always equal - are more evenly split than a system that lets someone like Bezos make billions while paying workers minimum wage and forcing them to pee in bottles since bathroom breaks aren't allowed. Places like Soviet Russia, while they did implement some socialist policies, were anything but stateless nor democratic, so I don't consider them to have been in line with the general principles. I personally wouldn't go so far as to shoot for stateless, but I would ideally want the government to primarily be there to provide services like healthcare and school, and have the obvious natuonal security and whatnot. A lot of similar functions with the regulations aiming to protect the working class rather than the wealthy. I am simplifying, though, since my understanding of economics isn't the greatest. To be completely clear, while I ideologically fall in the realm of anarcho-syndicalist (basically small government socialist), I wasn't strictly talking about socialism when I said that art existed before capitalism. I was speaking in broader terms that I think regardless of economic structure, so long as the country has the resources and freedom, I think media such as film or animation would still come to be. It's so theoretical that the only real basis is how historically people are always making things of the sort, even if it puts them at risk of execution, so I don't see any reason to believe animation could not exist in any meaningful way outside of capitalism. It was never a strict indictment of capitalism, despite personally disliking it for a number of reasons. But that definitely got tainted by RACG's genocidal advocacy of socialism (I don't even consider her to be socialist with how authoritarian she is). I also wasn't proposing this, as it's unrealistic to expect any time during this life; I was responding very specifically to the claim of anime exists because of capitalism. I probably should have been more clear given how out there RACG is.

Wait, do you people not understand that markets existed before capitalism? Like non-socialist markets? What the actual fuck?

And..... you get paid in worker co-ops. Usually more. Did you read actually anything I said or just decide loose critique=Soviet?

I haven't really said anything anti-capitalist outside of a brief mention of the work conditions. But apparently "it would probably still exist" is so anti-capitalist that I need to get a sickle and hammer. Like, "capitalism isn't universally perfect" is such a harsh criticism that half the folder's paperthin skin got mangled.

And cathedrals weren't painted by 1 person. Organization isn't uniquely capitalistic. If it were, I doubt society would have made it to the 1700s to invent capitalism. A worker co-op would be considered socialist, and those are companies which can and often do operate as full time jobs with greater stability, higher productivity, and better working conditions (more comfortable work environment leading to greater productivity, higher pay, etc) than traditionally capitalist models. These do also exist within capitalist countries, including the US - which isn't Soviet Russia, the last time I checked. There have been plenty of co-ops with financial success. The only point I'm making is that the economic model used in a country isn't the single determining factor of whether or not something exists. If capitalism didn't exist, that does automatically mean anime wouldn't. We couldn't possibly say it would or wouldn't since it's so far outside the realm of reality. We had organization structures before, and after, capitalism, so the argument that we need companies to make media is irrelevant since those would exist with or without.

Is it anti-capitalist to say that capitalism art still existed prior to it, therefore it likely would have been created regardless of if capitalism were a thing? To say "the reason anime exists is because of capitalism" is a shallow worldview that ignores the insane standards the existing industry puts on the workers. You don't have to work 30 years on a dream project to be given decent working conditions, but the profit motive gives an incentive to cut corners or drop quality to pander, which are clearly detriments. I'm saying removing those barriers would help to create quality productions. Obviously, we get plenty of quality shows under capitalism. I'm only trying to make the point that it's obviously not the only factor, much less so important thst the industry would cease to exist without it (an insane belief). Now, RACG is a lunatic who thinks everyone that looks at her the wrong way should get Old Yellered, so this isn't a defense of her ridiculous positions.

No, anime is an art form. Art existed before capitalism. If people can organize to create something, they will. If anything, capitalism ACTIVELY makes it harder to do that. Have you seen the working conditions anime company have? Is that really the only way to create art?

American imperialism matriarchy wasn't on the table, but mass murder sure was.

You strike me as the type of person who responds to "How are you?" with a manifesto about eradicating "undesirables". Those poor cashiers.....

Why are you asking a bunch of gotcha questions that have nothing to do with what I said? When did I say anything about anime coming from non-capitalist countries?

That's not what communism is, nor is it relevant to art existing before capitalism.

Art existed before capitalism. Wtf are you talking about?

No, she's an authoritarian fascist. Like she thinks executing people for disagreeing with her is progressive.

I've never gone to a casino and played blackjack. Broadly speaking, they do deliberately stack every game against you in one way or another. I guess blackjack would be harder to stack the deck on, but purposefully giving low cards should be simple enough for any experienced dealer.

Card counting is actually cheating in basically every card gsme. It nullifies shuffling altogether. Dealers get away with it since it isn't actually illegal to cheat at a game and they can do what they want in their establishment to prevent loss of profits. It's a scummy open secret.

It's all rigged. I'd suspect blackjack would be moreso since the dealer is in complete control, while slots are designed to give a small payout so people will continue using it in hopes of the very slim (but technically possible) jackpot. Unless you're real good at counting cards, slots would probably have a more reliable payout so long as you stop after making even a small win since it does have a win probablity. Dealers will fuck you over and are likely to have plants in any group game. Basically nothing in a casino is going to be particularly reliable, even with strategy. I believe dealers even open new packs of cards for every new game so they can more easily screw patrons. At minimum, never play a game against the dealer.

The majority of children with gender dysphoria experience a decrease or complete recovery from it post-puberty. In fact, most adults who experience it began feeling it during puberty. That's "most," not "all." But that's one of the primary reasons for puberty blockers to be used to delay puberty to see whether or not it fades.