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?

Which is wrong. Fines have to be linked to income and they must hurt or they are just a tax.

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?

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.

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.

Dass Entscheidungen nicht delegiert werden sondern gemeinschaftlich getroffen werden.

Dort wird soweit ich weiss ein Vorstand gewählt, der dann die Geschäfte führt. “substanziellen Form kollektiver demokratischer Gestaltung” klingt für mich viel partizitiver.

Stop using hate to focus.

Linke Wirtschaftsplanung muss in radikaler Weise demokratisch sein und auf einer substanziellen Form kollektiver demokratischer Gestaltung der Ökonomie beruhen. Die Planungsdebatte von reinen Machbarkeitsspekulationen zu lösen, trägt bereits zu ihrer Politisierung bei. Wenn wir die Frage nach den Subjekten der Planung – also: Wer plant? – ins Zentrum stellen, kann diskutiert werden, wie eine umfängliche Partizipation und demokratische Kontrolle auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen der Ökonomie aussehen müssten.

Statt zu diskutieren, einfach mal ausprobieren und ein kleines Unternehmen so leiten. Den Prozess so lange anpassen, bis es funktioniert. Ansonsten bleibt es Machbarkeitsspekulation.

Amazing, Trump was right, they were trading in salt rocks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5ElraFHHE (25s)

That should be the mindset.

However they speak of steps, and that the commission will lead by example. It doesn’t feel right. Will the commission take risks and try various regulations to see what is successful?

They also think that the bottleneck is venture capital so that they create their own scaleup fund. That fund will be run by bureaucrats. There is no network of experienced businessmen who support their investment beyond financing.

Yet, the EU financial system remains predominantly bank-centred, with bank assets totalling 300% of EU GDP, compared to just 85% in the US.

This has ‘we have startup at home’ energy. Either the EU increases the number of billionaires or they train a new class of bureaucrats who are not risk averse but still loyal enough to manage billions of euros.

It is time for Europe to become a startup powerhouse. Our competitiveness and ultimately prosperity depend on it.

This is existential. It’s not enough to copy some startup culture. The Commission cannot be in control but expect others to create the future of the economy.

In the USA, the billionaires are in control and they organize the future. The commission has to do much more. Maybe they should also take a look at China and its party.

If they want regular people to step up and do the founding without billionaires, they have to create much more infrastructure. All the things that the billionaires or the party provides, somebody else had to do that.

It’s also short sighted to focus on research institutions for founders. Everybody should be enabled to bring a good idea to life, especially people with real life experiences.

From the strategy paper:

It aims to create a dynamic ecosystem where … failure is seen as a necessary step to progress. The strategy will drive policy and regulatory changes across the EU, with the Commission leading by example.

Is this a good idea? There is always the risk of failure, but why make it a necessity?

The fire was already burning when you left. Don’t act surprised.

Our entire system needs to be torn the fuck down and be replaced with something entirely free. I don’t even give a fuck about people abusing the system at this point.

Make a lemmy community and make people subscribe who want change.

Make a lemmy community and make people subscribe who want change.

We are waiting for the uniforms and parades.

It would help to host the Olympics, or if you can manage, a FIFA World Cup.