Your basic point is wrong, but it's also irrelevant. People don't eat food production. They eat food.

Each time capitalism does produce food, it then stops and evaluates whether there is more profit in feeding people or throwing it away.

Even if food production was guaranteed, people still starve

is china currently facing a famine? or did china rapidly drain people away from the fields to industrialize causing a wane in food production and distribution and an inability to address an environmental crisis one time and useful idiots like you just started ignoring that time moved on?

at that point, why have currency? if the power imbalance is relative to the system of distribution requiring access to an exploitable and socially constructed resource, then surely we can come up with a better incentive system and organize distribution in an equitable fashion.

What? Do you think it's difficult to understand that only capitalism produces people with more than 5 yachts? It doesn't read as sincere. At all. It's very clear that people stopped reading halfway through and then couldn't just be like "oh shit, my bad."

the thing you are replying to is a joke. they are literally taking what nerd.jpg said and riffing on it. you read half of it, missed the joke, and got mad.

you don't deserve the courtesy of me trying to help you a second time, but here you go.

It's discrimination based on the mental health of others. For instance, did you know that people with BPD, the thing often called sociopathy are normal people capable of compassion and in fact, most of the BPD folks I know are more compassionate than so called sane people?

you are literally talking about ideals and not material reality. I am done talking to you.

attempting to cling onto as much of the feudal power structure as they could moving into the new liberal system.

liberalism came about because the ruling merchant classes of the colonies didn't wanna have to answer to a king anymore, they wanted the power for themselves.

yes. half of the foundational liberal texts were written by monarchists, hobbes literally reacted to the peasant revolts over the enclosure of the commons to say that actually we need a system of rulers to prevent this. a good portion of the founding texts were written by French nobility explicitly

you literally ignore evidence that doesn't support your worldview.

no, i am refuting the premise by which you make the claim. it is only true if you refuse to accept that he is the inevitable outcome of any liberal society. "ok maybe the confederacy, and i guess jackson, and no one really cares that biden and the clintons turned the US into a prison state, and, a—"

have you read the founding texts of liberalism? nothing about the things i pointed out there were illiberal. this is what i meant with "idealist"

oops grabbed the wrong one. not that it matters because hes gonna ignore it or deflect again

i actually am very sure you can't read anything longer than a single post.

reality is more important than your idealist reading of the constitution

dude, you are playing the wrong game here. you wanna be the smartest person in the room, but to get there you are refusing to engage with what is, in favor of the idealistic propaganda you were fed and its making you look both dumb and immoral. pack it up.

right next to their audacity

i have the best sources. the best. no one can beat my sources.