I didn’t give those examples because they are women. That’s a completely different topic. And poverty doesn’t care what color your skin is. That is my point.

And Angela Davis is a far-left activist that has worked with the USA communist party and The Black Panthers. She was a philosophy professor and she is very well educated. Also, somehow firearms that she purchased fell into the arms of a 17 year old so he could take hostages at his brother’s trial. Ultimately the judge, the brothers, and another defendent were killed during a shootout with police.

Can we make some up and have an awareness campaign?

Sure, I’ll break the response into paragraphs.

I never said nor implied any such thing.

I made that remark because this conversation started on the basis that racism needs capitalism, with which I disagree. I’m sorry that led to confusion and if I’ve offended you.

Sure, pay people for the work they do to extract and distribute resources for the common good. That doesn’t necessitate corporate profiteering or even private ownership, though.

Capitalism doesn’t necessitate the existence of corporations, but they form because people can usually make more money together and reduce their overhead by joining their efforts when it’s relevant. Plenty of people operate their own businesses and aren’t on a corporate payroll. Most of the time, independent business owners use a legal corporation strictly for legal purposes that aren’t directly related to capitalism itself.

And how do you reward people for their work if not with some kind of private property? The current system of private property has been the most successful in causing human progress in all of history.

Holy condescension, Batman! You seriously think that all that’s keeping people from wantonly wasting resources is monetary value?

No, but independent of whatever morals to which an individual subscribes, it is a major factor in how they decide how they use resources.

While that’s literally true, in no way does it follow that false scarcity and effective extortion are the only ways [to penalize misuse].

Every physical resource on earth is scarce. “False scarcity” doesn’t make sense as a concept outside the realm of digital goods; everything physical requires physical resources and time. Arguing that some resources are kept artificially scarce doesn’t disprove the fact that we can deplete the planet’s resources through misallocation.

Considering industry at large, companies have historically wasted precious water through pollution because there was no financial incentive not to do so.

It is not extortion to expect people to be compensated materially for their work with private property. Framing capitalism as “extortion” is a universal acid - in a communal village with a social debt system absent physical currency, you are extorted by your fellow villagers into doing work for them, for example. By necessity, a society needs people to be convinced to do work, and you can do that either through positive or negative reinforcement.

That’s not an apt comparison in either type nor severity.

I used that example as something that’s commonly seen, not to say that industrial resource misuse is on the same level as littering at the local park.

If there were park stewards who fined people every time they dropped trash on the ground and refused to pick it up, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people dropping their trash wherever they want. Certainly civic duty pays a part, but to your point about shortsightedness, litterers don’t care about their actions outside of immediate consequences.

Nope. Capitalist systems achieve profits by overcharging and deliberately introducing artificial scarcity.

Let’s say there are two companies that sell the same thing in the same market. If one company charges more money for their products without any actual benefit to the consumer, customers will choose to buy from the cheaper company. A free market encourages people to sell their wares at the most reasonable price possible. Namely, it discourages overcharging and using artificial scarcity.

Yet thanks to advances in capitalist exploitation, the average person has a harder time making ends meet than any time since the Great Depression, the Irish Famine or the Indian Famine.

This response means nothing in the face of improved living standards for everyone since the Great Depression, Irish Famine, and Indian Famine. There is more access to food, technology, and medicine than ever before, not because people were acting out of the pure intentions of their hearts, but because there was money to be made in making these things cheaper and higher quality. [The average life expectancy in 1900 was only about 47 years,] and about 63 years during the Great Depression, (https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2020/11/20/7035/) while today it is about 77.5 years. Yes, there is a very slight recent dip, but this doesn’t change the fact that the average person today is living 30 years longer than in the past.

Agreed. Which is why [land use] needs to be maximized for healthy sustainable long term yield, not short term profits like now.

I agree with what you said. Even aside from the morality of destroying the environment and wasting perfectly good farmland, doing so will indeed cost significantly more resources in the long run than simply using them wisely.

Almost exclusively the latter [that is, stupid rich people buying absurd amounts of land]. Especially when you consider not taking the long term survival of humanity into account a lack of sense.

Farmland is not being “almost exclusively” purchased or used for non-agricultural purposes. Per the USDA, In 2017, about 53 percent of the U.S. land base (including Alaska and Hawaii) was used for agricultural purposes. There are decreases recently, but those are because of retiring farmers, more efficient use of land, and the number of farms down is partly due to consolidation.

On the contrary: the vast majority of the money people pay for food go to international conglomerates that exploit the farmers to the point of robbing them of much of their independence since they’re too poor and exhausted to ever escape their situation.

Farmers can quit their jobs. Overall agricultural work is expected to decrease 2% over the next ten years despite the overall job market being expected to grow 4%. They are not necessarily slaves. You could make that argument for immigrants who are used as extremely cheap labor under threat of deportation, but the threat of deportation is not a necessary feature of capitalism any more than the suppression of free speech is a necessary feature of communism (from my memory of the Communist Manifesto; it’s been a while).

As I pointed out in the beginning, I’m in no way against compensating people for their work.

I’ve asked you above how to do that without private property; if you don’t want to copy/paste the answer down here in your reply, that’s alright.

[Slavery is] pretty much capitalism at its most extreme.

No, the idea that people should be able to own private property is not slavery. Medieval-style serfdom economies, where a noble demands labor with nothing in return, function much more like slavery (and, I would argue, are slavery). Under capitalism, people can pursue whatever ways to make their fortune that they want. Monsanto is not in cahoots with Microsoft, OpenAI, Amazon, the federal government, and Apple to ensure that people are legally and physically prevented from getting a different job.

And still legal as punishment for crime in the country with the most incarcerated people of any in the history of the world, which is also one of the most purely capitalist countries in the world.

Slavery is not a necessary component of capitalism, nor is any particular legal punishment. We became more capitalist when the 13th Amendment was passed, and we would become more capitalist still if prison slavery was put to an end. I hope we do just that.