We don't allow slave labor like communism does.
You might want to recheck that constitution.
Oh, no, what am I saying? You don't want to do that, because that would once more point out that you're clueless in your assertions. Now I don't want to read any more of them. And I'm free to turn you down, right?
Bad faith it is, then. Got it.
I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with "It's just how the world works", another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.
Most people don't have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that's assuming there aren't legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn't because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.
I'm going to suggest you read the article "Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future" by Edward Luttwak. Don't worry, it's just a warning, and it starts:—
That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth
so it's not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren't listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it'll be just far too clear that you're not acting in good faith.
This is the reasoning that leads to "if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them" with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose "choices" are not as unconstrained as the ones you're familiar with.
Honestly, even just the "a" is fine, really. I'll just read it as "blah-hadge" for my own amusement. But if anyone wants the å, it's probably Alt-0229 on Windows, Ctrl-Shift-u e 5 on Linux, or hold down "a" until the accented-characters popup appears on Macs, iOS and Android.
Potential struggle-session topic: If you're going to complain about misrepresentations of Sweden, please use the å: Blåhaj (and not say "blah hadge"; "blaw high" would be much better). :cat-trans:
The problem with notable examples is that they're pretty much never representative examples.
If wealth were actually distributed in the US equally that might be true, but as it is it's more than double what most Americans have, even ignoring inflation.
The average net worth of all American families was $746,820, according to the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, while the median figure was $121,760.
— The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity
I read it as Kropotkin calling bread a conquistador and warning us of its right-wing tendencies and ratcheting effects, which is why he writes that there's "a right to bread" and how, with it, "the Revolution will be on the right road". Contrariwise, "great cities are left without bread".
He also points to its pernicious indoctrinating ways: "the worker’s child must go without bread!" and lurking omnipresence: "two departments round Paris could find ample bread"
He was telling us to be on the lookout and that getting rid of it was of the utmost importance: "the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions", "suppress the possibility of obtaining anything besides the bread", "is necessary to deliver the bread", "bread must be found", "produce the bread". Fortunately this shouldn't be too hard: "less than 6 half-days’ work could procure bread".
In desperate times, we should not just eat the rich: "in times of Revolution one can dine contentedly enough on a bit of bread and cheese" (cheese being identified as a collaborator).
The concerning parts of the book for me are:
But those kinds of initialisations belong in .profile (or, if you're using a weird desktop environment, its own configuration file), particularly if you want .desktop files to work. (In .bashrc, PATH will grow longer in each subshell, which shouldn't cause problems but is wasteful.)
So, what desktop environment (GNOME, KDE, Cinnamon, etc.) are you using?
.profile is executed by login shells for the benefit of it and its subshells, and by DEs like Cinnamon for the benefit of .desktop launchers at login.
So, have you logged out and back in again since adding these lines to .profile?
And of course, the .profile has to be executed properly for its configuration to take effect, so it`s useful to know if the problem is with those specific lines, or the file as a whole.
Add:—
date >> ~/profile-execution-log-top.txt
echo $PATH >> ~/profile-execution-log-top.txt
to the top of .profile, and:—
date >> ~/profile-execution-log-end.txt
echo $PATH >> ~/profile-execution-log-end.txt
to the bottom of .profile (use alternative paths as you see fit) to monitor that activity. You can test this by sourcing .profile but the real test is logging out and in again. Look at the time when you do this so you can correlate each action with each timestamp in the log files. If .profile is executed to completion, you should have two files with matching timestamps but different PATHs. If you don't have a matching timestamp in the "end" log file, there's a problem mid-execution. If neither file is being updated, .profile isn't being executed at all.
Since .bashrc is executed for all non-login shells, it shouldn't really source .profile, which is only meant for login shells, and might trigger expensive activity. (.profile might source .bashrc, but that`s fine.)
So Jealous, Tegan and Sara