I think it could help to approach the game differently.

There is the anecdote about chess in which two kings are about to lead their armies into battle, but they play a game of chess first and start to appreciate their opponent and end up not fighting the battle.

There is the entire history of colonialism that suggests otherwise, but I think that capitalism is more than a means to oppress the masses. The masses are oppressed to achieve cultural progress. There is no need for our current form of capitalism if we find a way to create progress in another way.

State capitalism was not bad, but I think it is a dead end. We should try to come up with, and try other ways.

That’s how you end up with a population who agree with the leader even if he tells them the sky is green.

Or you are in Japan, maybe even North Korea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue–green_distinction_in_language

if it were the same, you wouldn’t have been allowed to make this comment.

It works both ways. Is OP allowed to make the comment because he is more priviliged or because he has less power and is less of a threat?

Remember the McCarthy era. There can be more restrictions if needed.

Developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s, the existence of these tracking codes became public only in 2004.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

To prevent the first cat from having fun

Does that taste like avocado?

States bomb their own population, but nuclear self destruction is a bit too much. I don’t see the link to what I suggested.

I am talking about things in the mind, about attitudes. If changing that already leads to anhilation, what is then left but acceptance of the current situation?

Without the expectation of being taken serious I want to double down.

In feudal times, peasants were controlled by the sword. They didn’t have access to swords and couldn’t change their situation.

Capitalism has the militarized police, but the main weapon is the control of the markets. Profits are made with the prices that the peasants are willing to pay.

At least in theory, it’s within reach of the peasants to influence those prices because those prices are living in their heads.

To be fair, what could a single billionaire do? They are far more powerful than most, but they would have to cooperate with other billionaires to make that change.

There are 3000 billionaires. Who is going to stick their head out if the necessary changes will be opposed by many billionaires as well as huge parts of the regular population?

It would be better for society to improve itself instead of waiting for a solution by the billionaires. Difficult while being trained to be a consumer, but possible.

Not sure if that’s the reason but I heard that gnu was chosen because gnus, the animal, are essentially one herd spread across Africa. A gnu that loses its particular herd, e.g. while crossing a river, can join any other. Supposedly that’s not the same for other herd animals.

Those who through systemic and continuous effort shield themselves from capitalist influence. It discredits them, brands them as enemies,

I am curious how NEET will handle this. They tick all the boxes.

We’re living under the totalitarian rule of capital.

What I meant to say is that the totalitarian part comes from our brain doing value judgements. If it wouldn’t, Capitalism wouldn’t work. Capitalism is a reflection of our mind.

If that makes Capitalism inevitable, could it be that we need more instead of less Capitalism for a better society?

There is always the all encompassing totalitarian rule of capital. People trade in prisoner of war camps. Everything has a value and people will exchange things by value unless they have a joined identity. Capital doesn’t crush families. Why should capital try to crush cooperating people who don’t oppose capital itself?

Unless the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.

I didn’t expect that people would get stuck on the side part of my comment or I would have written that all sides can make that argument. The important part is that everybody thinks that the others must be stupid because everybody themselves always acts to the best of their knowledge.

Resolutions of conflicts that split society cannot be won by insisting on being right. There needs to be an understanding of the motivations of the others that needs to go beyond the assumptions that have already been made. Otherwise it comes down to crushing their will and removing their power, or the split will continue.

not the strongest individuum has prevailed but the most kooperative group

yes

people have zero real influence on their lives.

Which means that they haven’t become the most kooperative group.

Many places are building horizontal, base democratic communities. Some ideas of people are either solely worker owned companies, full blown democratic socialism or base democracy with federation.

Are those going to be the most kooperative groups?

If we assume that it is possible for society itself to become the most kooperative group then something seems to be missing to make that possible.

My personal hunch is that there must be a more efficient way to resolve in-group conflicts that stand in the way of cooperation. So maybe we should look very closely at what is wrong with the current NEET situation.

How to change human nature? People could stop being pawns and redefine the game but they don’t do it. Here, NEETS stop playing the game and they are immediately shunned by society. People can’t stand to see in others what they have to suppress in themselves.

The end of capitalism would require some benevolent people to be in control or a majority of society that doesn’t fall for manipulations.

The best that I can imagine is that those who don’t like capitalism create their own island, kind of like the situation in brave new world. Fortunately I am not that clever so I hope that others find a better solution.

:) But don’t hold that in my favor.

Burning the board reverses development. Which decision in the past was wrong that could have led to a better society?

We would make the same mistakes again.

We could create a white pill. When groups of humans become enemies and it’s ok to hate them, then somebody is playing a fascist playbook and it becomes time to offer an alternative to all participants. (Which is just other words for ‘pawns of capitalists’.)

At least keep walking and become a queen.

This argument can be used by both sides.

Beauty. It gives everybody the illusion that they can decide or at least criticize everything. We will end with an unstable system where control becomes impossible and things collapse.

I was just arguing that they have plans. There will be plans for China but you have to look elsewhere.

Best I can do:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Colby

He played a key role in the development of the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, which, among other things, shifted the U.S. Defense Department’s focus to China.