NoneOfUrBusiness

That... is not a good sign.

“purposefully inflammatory”

Uh... this goes a bit beyond "inflammatory" chief.

Bass said in a statement Saturday night. “Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable.”

Well at least he got the stuff about feckless Democrats right.

Police on Friday night issued a citywide tactical alert nearly two hours after declaring protests across the downtown area unlawful assemblies. “The use of less lethal munitions has been authorized by the Incident Commander,”

I mean ACAB so this isn't new, but still holy authoritarianism batman.

Newsom said in a statement responding to Huerta’s arrest, describing the union president as a “respected leader, a patriot and an advocate for working people.”

I'd like that sentiment to carry over to, you know, actual policy, but I guess he's not folding like a lawn chair yet.

Like, what are the benefits of this style of social media,

The fact that you can choose your instance, and therefore the moderation policy of your instance. If you think your instance admins are too power trippy, too ban-happy, not ban-happy enough, lean too much into censorship, don't lean enough into censorship, don't censor the right people, censor the wrong people, etc you can find an instance modded by like-minded people rather than have to accept it if your instance is suddenly run by Spez. I personally have a couple of instances I would've hated to be on, so it's good to have options.

But in a way, couldnt he buy the most population Instances like Lemmy.World?

Only if the admins agree to that, since they're not running a public company. And even if they did, people can just jump ship.

There is no deescalation.

Nor can there be deescalation with fascists. Trump is looking for a fight, but fundamentally there can be no way to stop him but a fight. Something something they came for the immigrants, and I ____ (fill in the blank).

Gaining just a teensy tiny bit of faith in Americans, though I'm still flabbergasted that it took this long before non-cybertruck cars started burning.

Because they're tankies.

Fighting on the front line of the global war on terror.

How is the phrase "war on terror" not an instant career ender? Also what the heck are these answers? Does none of these guys want to go to, I dunno, Paris or something?

If people need a second factory, they will build a second factory.

Literally no. See: The massive swathes of the world where factories are needed and yet not built, so everyone is forced to pay through the nose for imported goods.

helping others to make another factory becomes a nonissue.

No? Labor is never a "nonissue"; it's literally labor. Even in a communist utopia someone with a good product idea would need to provide something to get me to build a factory to manufacture that product. Capitalism has mechanisms (flawed as they are) for choosing good ideas and getting workers to pour their labor into materializing said good ideas. This is not something that can be taken for granted; the lack of such mechanisms is what killed places like the Ottoman Empire and Qing China.

Many. I'm not wikipedia. if you genuinely want to learn something, look at anarchist, communist and socialist communities on lemmy, maybe read on the anarchist faq or the other hundreds of places where alternative systems are taught. andrewism on youtube has some nice videos on the matter.

So basically "read theory". If there are many examples, then it shouldn't be difficult to provide even one.

Again, capitalism is the only system that cares about competition. of course the person with the iphone is gonna outcompete the others. that IS THE POINT!

The heck? Societies have competed with each other economically, politically and militarily for as long as societies existed, and guess what? Having worse means of production makes a society weaker on all three fronts, and therefore more liable to be pushed around, defeated militarily or colonized. This isn't rocket science; this is literally the lived reality of half the world. Advanced means of production enable a society to dominate societies with less advanced means of production; that's how European colonialism happened, and it's why the West and China are the top dogs of the modern world order. You cannot just handwave advancing the means of production as something that is unnecessary or will take care of itself and expect to be taken seriously. I'm not even batting for capitalism here; screw capitalism, but whatever alternative will take its place needs to satisfy certain conditions to not be colonized by the capitalist world order. If your communist utopia can't develop new technologies and turn them into real economic activity on the ground at the same pace as a capitalist economy, capitalists will collapse the whole thing faster than you can say bourgeoisie. Arguments against capitalist innovation/"innovation" usually address the former, but I have never seen the latter addressed. If you have a response to that other than "read theory" then be my guest, otherwise I hope you notice you're not providing anything of value to this conversation.

People already organize in small and large groups, all around the world.

Yes, but you're missing the point. Put such an organization of people in charge of a factory with equal (or equal-ish, you get the point) distribution of profits and they'll pump out goods just fine, okay great. But do they have any incentive to take those profits and use them to build another factory? If not, then who builds the second factory? That is the crux of the issue here.

socialist, communist and anarchist movements have been violently destroyed because they developed too well.

Which ones? I'm not aware of a socialist society that survived long enough for such a statement to make sense, other than "socialist" USSR-style states which are... yeah no.

because for some reason iphones are better than nobody starving or being homeless.

Of course not, but the fact remains that you'll be outcompeted by the people with iPhones. You deliberately used an example that society could live without, but what if instead of the iPhone we use, say, the cotton mill? The steam engine? Do you see the problem now? Put a state with one of these next to one without and there's only one way for that to turn out.

Edit: I am not doing vanilla capitalist apologia here, so please save me the vanilla responses. I'm trying to make a very concrete point that you're really not engaging with.

Yes, now which of those do you think would be a good model to build a post-capitalist economy around? I'll build my counterargument around that.

A lot of the time it ends up being that, but for a counterexample you have modern electronic devices. I mean the laptop I'm using to type this certainly wasn't developed by a government grant. And then we have massive elephants in the room like, you know, the steam engine.