Are a anarcho-capitalists considered anarchists here?

Not my fault if liberals are blind to fascism since forever, and fighting the left instead. Like a fucking nazi is in the US government but liberals are still doing propaganda about tiananmen. They’re collaborators if you ask me.

Liberals are always the first to come to defend the fascists! It’s always funny to see. An ironic kind of funny at least.

Startups don’t work better than bigger companies. You’re daydreaming!

You seem like a liberal utopian. It’s useless to talk with you. Your consideration on people are completely crazy.

You completely missed my point.

Some people are not more efficient under pressure, they collapse or overheat. Putting pressure on people don’t always work to extract more productivity. That’s all there is.

And if you think it works for everyone, then the next step is for some asshole to weaponize the idea. Which is what they do in many companies : putting pressure on people to extract more productivity. And it does not work.

Some people work better under pressure. Some people work better when they have no pressure. Adhd is irrelevant to that.

I wasn’t saying that adhd is not a real illness. I’m saying there aren’t so many people with this actual illness. Like women didn’t suffer from histeria in the past. Some certainly were crazy. Most weren’t. A difference is not an illness is what I’m saying.

When so many people have adhd you should question whether it’s a mental condition or a societal condition.

And you’re just saying bullshit. Just because you can’t work without deadlines doesn’t mean deadlines are necessary. That’s just management lies to extract “productivity” at the expense of everything else.

Free softwares wouldn’t exist if your theory had any truth to itself. Art wouldn’t exist either.

That is a totalitarian idea because it only leads to totalitarian behaviours. Like the ones we have in so many companies where engineers are monitored like they’re children and given unrealistic deadlines under the pretense they’re lazy or procrastinate. None of this actually work. There is absolutely zero evidence it does.

You are generalising over something that’s wrong. That is the problem of your thesis.

No. Humans don’t thrive under pressure. This is merely a totalitarian idea.

I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence of war accelerating research beyond the effect of funding research more.

And Newton and Einstein had none of these motivations. Galileo neither.

You compare with your situation, but it has nothing to do with befote. Not because we’re not at war, but because we live in a capitalist distopia. Because capitalism won the war.

All the discoveries you’re talking about could be motivated by the thirst of knowledge or making the world a better place. But the only single motivation we have left today is making money for our overlords, that is the key change.

It is not that war fuels discoveries, it is that greed does not, and greed is the only allowed motivation in our society. The only one that will receive money anyway.

Take Internet as an example : it was funded because of war and fear, but those who made it only had hope and naivity to make it, which is why it is so insecure, and why so much is done since 20 years to lock and dominate it.

Hitler still was crucial for the nazis to take power. His political wits was much higher than any other nazi. He did turn the nazi party from an irrelevant extremist group to a force that could seize power. He didn’t do it alone. But pretending that nothing would change without him is like pretending Caesar or Napoléon weren’t mandatory to their deeds.

Hitler definitely couldn’t do what he did alone. But he was definitely a pivotal factor to make History what it was.

Counter argument : ww2 was completely irrelevant to all post war progresses, war against communism, which was a mortal threat to capitalism, was the key factor.

During the cold war, capitalism had to provide comfort and progress to people, or people would have turn communist. And so it did. Until it basically won in the 70s.

The idea that society needs war or competition incentive to do anything is the dumbest liberal mind fuck of today. It’s completely wrong, but it goes with the ideology that dominates.

The idea that we need war for progress is dumb.

Ceos being scared for their life is a notable change IMO. Surveillance and repression are as usual.

That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.

But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.

I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?

You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.

Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.

That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.

Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.

Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.

Calling US leftists extremists is the funniest joke I’ve read today!

Truth is liberals are much more extremists than most leftists. At some point they will need to realise it and take responsibility for the shit they did for so long.

The liberals have to do their mea culpa, not the left. Right now it will soon be a matter of choosing a side : humanism or fascism. Until now the liberals always chose fascism and called the leftists dangerous extremists.

Choose a side liberals. You made the world what it is today. And you’re now blaming the leftists and asking them to support your insanity. That’s not how it works. Leftists know which side they are fighting for, and they will suffer the consequences. What about you liberals?

You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they’re ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.

So no, the leftists didn’t refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.

Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.

The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it’s completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.