Yeah, I agree with that. Mass centralization is bad regardless of the situation IMO. We need collaboration instead.
I'm personally a fan of Prof Wolff's idea to force all corporations to surrender ownership to their workers, converting them into worker-owned coops. This would largely mitigate the ability for extreme wealth concentration to happen to begin with, especially if combined with other wealth-limiting regulations.
Also Idiocracy basically promoting eugenics
Clearly if it hasn't been implemented before and doesn't currently exist today, it's impossible to ever happen. We live at the end of history, you see.
No, because we live in a global society where if you don't participate in global trade (especially with the USA in the past couple hundred years), your country will fail.
The USA has played a massive part in making communist experiments fail, most notibly the USSR.
The closest thing that the western world has is the nordic countries' social democracy, which is still capitalist by nature. They only implemented it, though due to communism being literally right around the corner (USSR)
So basically the Internet before YouTube came out and sparked the rapid corporatization of the Internet we called "Web 2.0"
for f in $(find .); do sed -i 's/wokeness//g' $f; done
Well, billionaires and oligarchs are the deep state and always have been. The GOP is just their puppet. DNC is as well, but they're less relevant nowadays.
Just recently, the new head of the DNC stated that they only want to take money from "good billionaires" and not "bad billionaires", and meanwhile the GOP (represented by Trump) just installed the richest man on Earth who's also a Nazi as essentially king of America so he can ignore being president and go golfing.
One is clearly better than the other, but that side is controlled oppositition bought by the billionaire class as well, which creates a ratchet effect where the range of "acceptable" political beliefs shifts further and further right, as we've seen since at least the 70s, but which really ramped up with Reagan and Bill Clinton's introduction of neoliberal idiology to the US.
The ARM SoC work is likely for a VR headset to rival the Meta Quest line. Valve isn't going to build a console-like PC without an x86 processor in it any time soon until x86 emulators like FEX and Box86 become more advanced and faster.
Pre-built PCs come with Windows and are not suited for a console-like experience out of the box like a machine with a preinstalled OS for gaming (whether that be SteamOS, Orbis (PS4/5), Horizon (Nintendo Switch), or Xbox's OS).
Not everyone is comfortable with installing their own OS/deleting Windows either, regardless of how easy it is.
Something like a Steam Machine 2 can really appeal to console gamers who want to dip their toe into PC gaming while still maintaining a console-like experience.
Hexbear has one already. It's basically all about money, though, but it's nice to see people in need get help.
Every accusation is a confession
Really good question!
We look at the motivations for starting businesses through a modern-day capitalist lens, but the motivations would change under a different economic system (not entirely, though, depending on the economic system).
Making money is still the goal here for most people, but this would be combined with a strong social welfare program that makes all basic human needs (housing, food, utilities, internet, etc.) available to everyone, so fear of failure is vastly reduced.
As for the motivation to create a startup, there could be a few different cases, such as only having large businesses (determined by either employee count or total annual profit or revenue) be impacted by that regulation that forces all businesses to be worker-owned.
Another reason could simply be wanting to create something new for the betterment of humanity. If all basic human needs are met, then the profit motive, while not going away entirely, is greatly reduced, as the need for survival is already met, so more experimentation with different ideas can happen with the fear of failure being greatly reduced, as it would be simple to restart from scratch with a strong safety net. There could still be a profit motive here, but it would be secondary to the actual idea.
You're an artist, but you're not popular and you don't make money off your work? Cool, you can do that full time.
You're wanting to open a (non-chain/franchised) corner store with 5 well-paid employees? Go for it.
Your business expanded to over 50 employees, or makes more than $10 million in annual profit (completely arbitrary numbers here)? Now your business gets equally split up amongst the workers. The stock market in this situation would no longer exist, where external parties can both gamble on a company and influence the direction of that company, usually in favor of short term gain. When employees own the business, they tend to favor long term sustainability and stability, as that is what most people are seeking for themselves.
There should also be a hard cap on wealth, as nobody could ever possibly need more than $50 million for their entire life (again, arbitrary number). If wealth had a hard cap, that would also reduce incentive to constantly try to seize more power in any field (wouldn't limit it entirely, but I don't think anything can).
This will not eliminate the profit motive, as most people aren't going to be satisfied with just the bare minimum for survival, but the lack of profit/business failure will not lead to homelessness/starvation/etc.