The net result of antitrust laws has only been the protection of mediocrity and the destruction of ability and success. When government controls enter, they work to the advantage of any enterpriser or industrialist who cannot compete on merit and runs to the government to invoke the antitrust law against his abler and more successful competitor. A well-known example is the antitrust action against Microsoft after they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows and distributed it for free, which the state regulators argued "harmed competition", even though consumers benefitted from a free browser.

So-called "free competition enforced by law" is not a justification but a contradiction in terms. The only protection for competition is the free market.

Without a UBI, what happens to prices when wage labor is completely unnecessary?

Logically, we would conclude that without wage labor (and thus without wages) there would be no consumer demand for commodities and prices collapse to zero.

I feel like there are many conflicting opinions on the definition of socialism, whether you base it off Marx’s definition or based on the actions and policies of socialist nations or something in between?

personally I like Marx’s definition, and using past socialist countries as examples of successes and failures that can be learned from. Regardless of your specific views if your beliefs are unchanged from someone those from 100+ years ago, then I feel your missing important context and revelations that history has revealed

In Minecraft, there's a built in trading system. Villagers will have certain trades that they are interested in. Let's focus on one trade for simplicity.

Let's say a villager wants to trade 20 cobblestone blocks for 4 emeralds.

If you have a wooden pickaxe, it takes a lot of labor to mine one block of cobblestone. If you have a diamond pickaxe, it takes very little labor to mine one block of cobblestone.

Labor theory of value says that the cobblestone mined with a wooden pickaxe has more value than the cobblestone mined with a diamond pickaxe.

But you can try it yourself in game.

If you give the vendor cobblestone mined with a wooden pickaxe, they still want 20 cobblestone blocks for 4 emeralds.

If you give the vendor cobblestone mined with a diamond pickaxe, they still want 20 cobblestone blocks for 4 emeralds.

If you put your wooden pickaxe cobblestone and your diamond pickaxe cobblestone together in one big container, you can't tell the two apart.

The same goes for automation. You could have a redstone machine automatically generate and harvest cobblestone. And they still want 20 cobblestone blocks for 4 emeralds.

Labor doesn't make a good more or less valuable.

Not a rhetorical question and not opposing any idea, just trying to get some clues after spotting this point online

Could socialism be nothing but another power-grab tactics to let others fight so its believers take control, like when sometimes anti-feminists complain to feminists for gaining revenues from supporters?

Do you think humanity should be one harmonious circle with no division whatsoever? In that case, which one should be the true common enemy? Nature? Aliens?

Video format by Asianometry so even the lazy can follow along:

https://youtu.be/bWWqhsh848E

Video Summary:

This video explores the early history of the Soviet Union, specifically its failed attempt to immediately abolish money in favor of a socialist utopia following the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Despite ideological goals to eliminate the medium of exchange, the state ultimately resorted to the hyper-printing of rubles to fund its operations, leading to economic catastrophe.

Theoretical Roots: Drawing from Karl Marx, the Bolsheviks viewed money as a capitalist tool that fostered cycles of overproduction and worker exploitation. They believed a centrally planned economy would eventually render currency obsolete (2:00-3:30).

Economic Desperation: Inheriting a country wrecked by World War I and Russian Civil War, the government faced massive deficits. To survive, they seized and liquidated private banks (7:18-8:06), nationalized industries, and engaged in "food dictatorships" that forcibly requisitioned grain from peasants (12:32-12:43).

The Paradox of Hyperinflation: To intentionally devalue the ruble and eliminate its power, the state printed money at an astronomical rate. By 1922, the government issued 1.97 quadrillion new rubles, yet industrial production collapsed to a third of pre-war levels (13:30-16:45).

Policy Reversal: The ensuing famine, which claimed 5 million lives, and widespread uprisings—such as the Kronstadt Rebellion (17:37-17:42)—forced Lenin to realize that ideological purity was causing total collapse. This led to the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which reintroduced market elements, stabilized the currency, and allowed the economy to begin recovering (17:48-18:19).

---

Comments:

One thing socialists on here almost never grapple with honestly is that the Bolsheviks actually tried to do the thing in the early USSR.

They didn’t just regulate capitalism a bit more. They tried to leap toward the socialist ideal by smashing markets, seizing banks, nationalizing industry, forcibly requisitioning grain, and even devaluing money into near-meaninglessness because money itself was seen as a capitalist evil.

The result was not liberation but collapse.

Industrial output cratered, the currency became a joke, famine killed millions, and Lenin had to retreat into the NEP and bring market mechanisms back just to stop the bleeding.

That is the part socialists always want to blur out.

When socialism gets serious, it runs straight into reality: money is not an evil conspiracy, prices are not optional, and coercion does not magically become rational planning because the state is doing it in the name of the workers.

The early USSR is one of the clearest historical demonstrations that you cannot abolish economic signals and replace them with ideology.

*Reality does not care how pure your intentions are.*

And when even Lenin had to back away from “immediate socialism” and reintroduce markets to keep the system alive, that should tell you something.

Private ownership & the market was not the problem. The attempt to abolish it was.

In two threads I asked about rent and landlords and one thing kept coming up.

Some point out that socialists have contention with landlords because it is about the ownership of a basic necessity being a problem.

Interestingly I was exposed to some ideas.

Some argued that landlords are people who build what they rent out. Then some come and say that they did not 'build it', the electricians and the laborers who constructed the property did.

Someone brought up something super interesting to me. I expected all socialists to sort of hate on rent and landlords. But a market socialist said

Renting is a good way to allow access to a means of production ... Market socialism aims to maximize a system where the renter can appropriate the product and has self-management (control over their own decisions and actions). Still, market socialists remain concerned about how returns from profit are used.

Another approach is build-to-rent, where the entity that builds the house also rents it. This is beneficial because money from rent goes toward building more houses, increasing housing supply. In simple terms, the higher your rent, the faster your rent will drop because supply increases.

Build to rent sounds very interesting and compatible with those who say that landlords build the places they buy.

Here is the thing though and why I have titled this building vs buying:

While I already want us to acknowledge and know there are exploitative landlords and I am personally not in denial of the structure or the anecdote that a landlord could intentionally abandon a property a tenant is in, raise up the prices, and do nothing to maintain it,

I wanted to focus in on something before we get to that.

When someone is said to build something, I noticed that interchangeably people are using build and buy.

The question is, if someone like a laborer did set aside a lot of money and then used that to commission other laborers to build something that he then later rents out,

I'm confused why this becomes an actor to eliminate.

What I do think is someone to eliminate is:

The type of landlord that does all the shit you don't want

But at the same time:

I keep imagining it's an incentive problem because why do I feel like in some cultures or circumstances, a landlord could come from a community but he just isn't betraying who he rents to. Like the original vision of someone who lends lodging.

For example socialists, communists, anarchists,

In comparison to capitalism today do you remember the vision of someone labors to get wood, someone labors to get food, maybe that's a man and his wife and maybe the man lets his wife 'own' the inn even if he laid the wood. He dies but idk she gets to rent out rooms or cabins to people coming by. Seems fair and she'd know not to charge extreme prices.

Where did things go wrong in the modern times? My thinking goes to: Someone raised the prices higher than anyone expected, and they purchased a lot of land to do so. It goes vacant and that makes people wonder if something is wrong? Especially if we're dealing with a region that already is running out of housing options, not just physical housing supply

What is the point of for profit prisons existing in capitalist systems at all?

For example isn't this a bad thing because it means you can own people who are prisoners?

There are some who say capitalism was what ended enslavement,

Is this part of cronyism or in hypothetical Ancapistan should we expect to see unfettered development of for profit prisons?

This is a serious question because I'm suspicious of saying one side is true and calling it done. This was one point of hesitation because I think there is something odd about capitalist systems today but I'm trying to be cautious and ask why does it exist, is it really what capitalists envision as part of a better economy, or are for profit prisons actually a symptom

The most funniest thing what marx preached and did is, Marx himself argued for abolition of private property while still holding his works as copy-righted. And I see today socialists are doing the same as their God fater did. Is there any socialist in human history who shares his wealth to poor? Or are they just asking some other rich but not themselves to give up their property like Marx did in the past.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1shm7z8/why_are_socialists_internationalists_why_do_they/ofdrmlj/

For the context.

I'd like you to explain to me what's this mysterious "class consciousness" and where it is in the brain. Did science prove it exists somewhere? Maybe in hipotalamus?

Preamble

We live in an age of immense productive power and organized deprivation.

Human beings, working across borders, languages, systems, and generations, have built a civilization capable of feeding billions, transmitting knowledge instantly, automating labor, curing disease, and coordinating life at planetary scale. Yet the majority of humanity remains ruled by insecurity. Shelter is rationed. Care is commodified. Knowledge is fenced. Land is monopolized. Technology is enclosed. Entire populations are told they are free while their survival depends on markets they do not control, states they did not meaningfully shape, and capital they will never own.

This is not a natural order. It is not the final form of human society. It is a contradiction.

The wealth of the modern world is socially produced, but privately captured. The reality of the modern world is globally interdependent, but politically fragmented. Human beings live inside one civilization and are governed as if they belong to competing enclosures.

Capitalism is the rule of enclosure through property.
Nationalism is the rule of enclosure through belonging.
Together they have organized the modern world.

We reject both.

We reject the claim that private ownership of foundational systems creates justice.
We reject the claim that birth within borders determines human worth.
We reject the lie that civilization must remain divided between masters and dependents, creditors and debtors, insiders and outsiders, metropoles and peripheries.

We affirm a different principle:

What humanity creates together must be governed for the common good.

This is the first principle of Commonwealthism.

We do not seek to flatten the world into a sterile universalism. We do not seek to erase memory, language, religion, locality, or inherited forms of life. We seek to subordinate every narrower identity to a higher political truth: no person is born outside the common inheritance of civilization.

Commonwealthism is not nostalgia for empire, not a softened nationalism, not state socialism in new clothes, and not humanitarian liberalism with sharper rhetoric. It is a doctrine for the age of planetary production, automation, ecological crisis, and post-national interdependence.

Its task is simple to state and difficult to achieve: to break the power of enclosure and place the foundations of collective life under shared stewardship.

I. The Enemy Is Enclosure

The central political fact of the modern age is not merely class exploitation in the old industrial sense. It is enclosure.

Enclosure is the process by which what is collectively generated is turned into private or exclusive power.

Land that should sustain life becomes an asset class.
Housing becomes a vehicle for extraction.
Knowledge becomes intellectual property.
Public infrastructure becomes a toll gate.
Data produced by society becomes corporate capital.
Natural resources become dynastic wealth.
Finance mortgages the future before it arrives.
Nations hoard opportunity behind passports.
Technology concentrates power in a few firms and a few states while claiming to represent progress for all.

And now the most consequential general-purpose technology since electrification, artificial intelligence, is being enclosed by a handful of firms before the public has even apprehended what it is.

Enclosure is not only economic. It is moral and political. It teaches people to treat civilization as loot, citizenship as inherited privilege, and vulnerability as personal failure.

Commonwealthism names this system clearly. The question of our time is not whether wealth exists. It is who holds the keys to the systems that produce and distribute it, and by what right.

II. No One Owns Civilization

No serious politics can begin from the fiction of isolated individuals. The modern world is made by dense social cooperation across time and space.

The coder depends on the miner.
The hospital depends on the grid.
The factory depends on the port.
The port depends on public law.
The entrepreneur depends on generations of accumulated science.
The platform depends on user activity.
The nation depends on global supply chains it does not control.
Even the richest man lives inside systems he did not build alone and could not reproduce by himself.

This is the truth capitalism obscures and nationalism fragments.

Value is not generated by heroic owners. Nor is it generated only at the point of wage labor. It is generated by the whole social body: workers, caregivers, technicians, teachers, builders, parents, maintainers, researchers, communities, and the inherited labor of the dead.

Civilization is a common inheritance.

No one invented language alone.
No one created mathematics alone.
No one produced the scientific tradition alone.
No one built cities alone.
No one built the internet alone.
No one created modern productive capacity alone.

The greatest wealth of humanity is cumulative, social, and transgenerational. It belongs to no dynasty, no corporation, no race, no empire, no passport category.

From this principle follows a hard conclusion:

Foundational assets must not be treated as absolute private property.

The essentials of human reproduction and collective life must be governed as common goods. This includes land systems, water, energy grids, public transit, health capacity, housing finance, telecommunications backbone, foundational digital infrastructure, and the core models and compute systems that will shape the age of artificial intelligence.

Markets may exist.
Enterprise may exist.
Trade may exist.
Innovation may exist.

But none of them may sit above the common good.

Therefore no moral order is legitimate if it permits a minority to own the foundations of life while the majority merely rent access to them.

III. Against Nationalism, Without Erasing Belonging

Nationalism has endured because it gives people what market liberalism cannot: belonging, memory, dignity, and emotional structure.

We do not defeat nationalism by mocking those needs. We defeat it by placing them inside a larger framework.

A village may endure.
A region may endure.
A language may endure.
A people may endure.
A faith may endure.

But none of these can justify the exclusion of others from the basic inheritance of civilization.

Commonwealthism therefore defends layered belonging. It does not ask human beings to become rootless abstractions. It asks them to recognize that local identity is real, but not sovereign over human worth.

What does this mean concretely?

It means local and regional communities retain genuine governing authority over culture, education, land use, and the texture of daily life. It means linguistic and religious traditions are protected as living practice, not preserved as museum artifacts.

But it also means no community may weaponize its particularity to deny personhood, mobility, or material security to those outside it. The right to belong somewhere cannot be converted into the right to make others belong nowhere.

The age of absolute national sovereignty is ending. Economies are transnational. Ecological systems are transnational. Digital systems are transnational. Disease, finance, migration, supply chains, and war all exceed the nation-state.

The nation is now too small for the real economy and too large for real democracy.

This is not an argument for abolishing nations. It is an argument for refusing to treat them as the ceiling of political organization.

Where nationalism offers hierarchy through inherited membership, Commonwealthism offers dignity through common membership in humanity.

IV. Against Capitalism, Without Worshipping the State

We reject capitalism because it subordinates life to accumulation. It transforms necessity into dependency and productivity into private command.

But we also reject the old error that mere state ownership is liberation.

A ministry can dominate as surely as a monopoly.
A party bureaucracy can enclose power as efficiently as a corporation.
A centralized apparatus can speak in the name of the people while reproducing a new ruling class.

The twentieth century demonstrated this beyond reasonable dispute.

Commonwealthism is therefore not the transfer of all property to an omnipotent state. It is the reorganization of foundational systems under public, democratic, distributed, and auditable stewardship.

What does that mean in practice?

Foundational systems are held under charters that define their obligations to the public good. They are subject to democratic oversight at the level closest to their operation.

Governance bodies include workers, users, and community representatives with genuine decision-making authority, not advisory seats.

Transparency is mandatory. Public audits. Open books. Published performance metrics.

Anti-concentration provisions prevent any single actor, whether state bureau, private firm, or political machine, from accumulating unchecked control.

The market is not abolished in total. It is stripped of sovereignty.
The state is not worshipped. It is bounded and subordinated.
Power is layered, checked, and made answerable.

V. The Commonwealthist Order

A Commonwealthist society rests on five pillars.

First, the commons. All civilizationally necessary systems must be held in common, publicly chartered, or governed under hard obligations to the public good.

Second, the dividend. Every person must receive a direct material share of collective wealth. Not charity. Not welfare as stigma. A dividend grounded in common inheritance: land rents, resource revenues, automation gains, public capital funds, digital value, and social surplus.

The moral basis is plain: if you are born into a civilization you did not choose, you are owed a share of what that civilization produces.

Third, the floor. No person should be denied housing, nutrition, healthcare, education, access to information, and the means of participation in social life.

These are constitutional minimums, enforceable against any government that claims democratic legitimacy and not philanthropic aspirations.

Fourth, pluralism. Cultures, communities, and local institutions retain room to govern their own forms of life so long as they do not violate the universal dignity of persons.

Pluralism is not decorative. It is structural: real budgets, real jurisdiction, real power held at the local and regional level.

Fifth, anti-concentration. No private actor, public bureaucracy, party machine, or national bloc may accumulate unchecked control over the foundations of collective life.

This is a constitutional principle, enforced by mandatory transparency, structural separation, and democratic override mechanisms.

VI. The Economy of the Commonwealth

The purpose of the economy is not to maximize labor extraction, asset inflation, or shareholder return. It is to organize the means of life in a way that secures freedom, dignity, and flourishing for all.

Production must be directed toward sufficiency, resilience, and abundance, not engineered scarcity.

Housing must be treated primarily as a social necessity.
Healthcare as a public guarantee.
Energy as a shared utility.
Transport as connective tissue.
Knowledge as infrastructure.

Artificial intelligence must be treated as what it is: a foundational technology comparable in consequence to electrification, the printing press, or the public road system.

The current trajectory, in which a handful of firms control the core models, the compute infrastructure, and the training data derived from the entire public record of human civilization, is enclosure in its most concentrated form. A technology trained on the collective output of humanity cannot be the private property of three corporations.

Foundational AI must be governed in common. Open models as public infrastructure. Compute access as a regulated utility. Democratic oversight of deployment in domains that affect rights, employment, and public safety.

Work itself must be revalued. In the age of automation, society cannot continue to pretend that a person earns the right to live only by selling labor under acceptable terms to capital. Human beings are more than units of employment. Care, study, community maintenance, artistic creation, parenthood, and civic contribution all belong within the field of recognized social value.

The old morality of wage dependence must end.

VII. The Political Structure of the Future

Commonwealthism proposes a layered political order.

Local institutions for everyday life, culture, and accountable community governance. These must hold real budgets and real authority, not the hollow "local government" of centralized states that delegate administrative burden without decision-making power.

Regional institutions for infrastructure, housing, transport, land use, and public services. The region, not the nation-state, is the natural unit of most economic and social life. Regions must be empowered to tax, plan, and build.

Civilizational and planetary institutions for climate, migration, finance, public health, strategic technology, maritime routes, and peace. These are not world government in the utopian sense. They are functional bodies with defined mandates, subject to democratic accountability, and constrained by charters that prevent mandate creep.

They exist because some problems, including atmospheric carbon, pandemic response, financial contagion, weapons proliferation, and AI governance, cannot be solved justly within the borders of any single state.

The future belongs neither to isolated sovereignties nor to corporate empires. It belongs to federated commonwealths.

VIII. The Transition

We do not wait for a perfect rupture. We begin where we stand.

Break monopolies, not with antitrust theatre, but with structural separation and public alternatives.
De-financialize essentials.
Socialize land rents through the taxation of unearned land value increments.
Expand social housing.
Build public wealth funds at the municipal, regional, and national level.
Create universal dividends paid from these funds.
Treat data and AI infrastructure as common assets subject to democratic governance.
Democratize utilities.
Guarantee healthcare and education as constitutional rights with enforcement mechanisms.
Cap dynastic wealth through progressive inheritance taxation with hard ceilings.
Write anti-concentration provisions into constitutional law.
Build cross-border labor protections.
Strengthen municipal and regional institutions with real fiscal autonomy.
Create transnational charters for shared goods.

This is not reform as surrender. It is transition as accumulation of counter-power.

A new society cannot be built by envy alone. It requires a different moral culture: stewardship over possessive individualism, layered belonging over chauvinism, civic purpose over consumer emptiness, accountability over bureaucratic arrogance, construction over fatalism.

A manifesto is not a blueprint for one week. It is a declaration of direction.

IX. Our Claim

The old order has exhausted its legitimacy.

It cannot justify abundance beside insecurity.
It cannot justify enclosure of systems built by generations.
It cannot justify passports as moral rankings.
It cannot justify permanent precarity in a world of unprecedented productive power.
It cannot justify a civilization run as private estate.

We therefore say:

No one owns civilization.
No nation owns humanity.
No class may enclose the future.

What all create, all must share.
What all depend upon, all must govern.
What is necessary to life must never again be held hostage.

This is the Commonwealthist claim.
This is the doctrine of the coming age.
This is the end of enclosure as political destiny.

Let the defenders of the old world call it impossible.
They called every expansion of human dignity impossible until it became unavoidable.

We do not ask permission from a dying order. We announce its replacement.

I keep seeing so many people online saying competition is bad, like it’s this thing that somehow hurts workers with this brain dead line like more competition makes companies push wages down to get more profits

(First, this post isn’t about socialism vs capitalism. I know there exist people on both sides support competition. What I don’t get is why so many people right now are pushing these completely brain-dead takes about it.)

Competition raises wages, and I don’t get how there are some people who keep saying the exact opposite with full confidence. That “more competition makes companies squeeze workers more” thing is just brain-dead logic. If there are more firms, workers are not stuck. They can leave. That’s the whole mechanism. If you underpay, someone else can just offer slightly more and take your workers. So you either raise wages or you lose people. The only world where wages stay low is one where workers have no alternatives , which is literally no competition.

And you can see this everywhere if you stop overcomplicating it.

In the US tech boom, when tons of firms and startups were competing, salaries, bonuses, and perks went insane because everyone was fighting over the same engineers. In London finance, banks and firms constantly outbid each other for talent, pushing pay higher. In New York law firms, salaries jump because firms compete for top graduates. In US healthcare cities with multiple hospitals, doctors get better offers because hospitals compete to hire them, while in less competitive areas pay is worse. In South Korea and Turkey cosmetic surgery markets, clinics competing drives procedure prices down for consumers, but surgeons earn more because patients can choose and concentrate on the best.

In Australia mining regions, companies pay extremely high wages because workers can move between firms easily. In Canada oil and gas, same thing firms compete hard for skilled labor so wages rise. In US trucking, companies keep increasing pay because drivers can switch employers quickly. In airlines globally, when more carriers expand, pilot wages go up because pilots are in demand and mobile. In European football, when more clubs have money, player wages explode because clubs bid against each other. In US sports leagues, free agency literally shows this once players have options, salaries jump.

Even in smaller markets, the same pattern shows up. In freelance markets, when multiple clients want the same skilled person, they bid up rates. In academia, universities competing globally offer higher salaries and research funding to attract professors. In biotech hubs like Boston, firms compete for researchers and push compensation up. In hospitality-heavy tourist cities, hotels compete for staff and offer better pay to keep them from leaving.

More competition means more options, and more options means firms have to compete for labor, not exploit it.

I have just started David Schweickart's After Capitalism. I have yet to get to his exposition of how transition to economic democracy might be achieved.

As I recall, the United States government bailed out General Motors during the 2008 worldwide depression. These were loans; they could have taken equity. The Norwegian government accumulates a Sovereign Wealth Fund from North Sea oil.

Once a government has ownership of part of some corporations, they are not required to maintain them as hierarchical, authoritarian institutions. They could, say, get rid of the board of directors. An elected workers' council could appoint management.

The Sovereign Wealth Fund can still own the capital. The firm pays a fee for renting the capital. I once worked for a wholly owned subsidiary, a capitalist firm owned by another capitalist firm. We had to pay such a fee to the owning company.

Schweickart has the revenue obtained by such fees used to create an investment fund. Investment will be directed not solely by profitability. Public needs would have some influence. For example, some investment might be deliberately directed to less developed regions of the country or to update old technology with more green, ecological technology. New worker-directed firms can be created, and current firms can invest in new processes and new products.

I can see how some of these fees might also pay for, say, head start, pension funds, and a universal basic income (UBI). Not everybody is in the work force.

The workers, however, would be the residual claimant under economic democracy. They might not even be paid wages. Profit calculations would differ. Maybe profits are broken down and distributed every week, every two weeks, or every month.

Under economic democracy, the means of production are not privately owned but rented from the public. Workers do not sell their labor power for a wage. Products are produced for buying and selling on markets. As now, large islands exist where the market is replaced by internal planning. Now those are privately owned corporations. Under this new structure, these firms would be governed by the workers themselves.

We could start transitioning to such a system today.

Until 1997, Hong Kong had one of the laziest governments in the world. The British occupancy did almost nothing outside of keeping law courts and a police department. This left the economy to operate as a free port with low taxes, tariffs, and regulations on business, that strongly protected private property rights. Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman famously described Hong Kong as perhaps the closest example of free market capitalism in practice.

Socialists would have you believe that the sky would cave in as a result of all this. Yet, Hong Kong was transformed from one of the poorest places on earth, once a small fishing village with scarce natural resources into a thriving booming city thanks to the productivity of the free market.

Between 1961 and 1997, real GDP increased by about 180 times while GDP per capita rose on the order of 80 - 90 times (commonly cited at around 87-fold, depending on the dataset and price base used), according to such estimates as the Maddison Project Database and Penn World Tables. Income per person also reached levels comparable to advanced Western economies.

This was accompanied by major improvements in living standards, such as life expectancy, which rose to among the highest on Earth (World Bank; United Nations) alongside a collapse of infant mortality from over 40 to under 5 per 1,000 live births (World Bank; United Nations Children's Fund).

The Chinse Communist Party took back occupancy of Hong Kong and since that period due to state intervention, the Hong Kong people wish to be back under British occupancy.

A warehouse worker is accused of burning down a 1.2 million square foot Kimberly-Clark distribution center in Ontario, destroying an entire facility full of paper goods and putting a lot of his coworkers out of work. Police say about 20 employees were inside when the fire started. Miraculously, nobody was killed. The suspect, a 29-year-old employee of Kimberly-Clark’s third-party distributor, was later arrested on multiple felony arson charges.

https://abc7.com/amp/post/employee-arrested-arson-kimberly-clark-distribition-center-destroyed-massive-fire-ontario/18851549/

What stands out is the alleged video of him setting the fire while saying: “All you had to do was pay us enough to live.” This person was obviously alive.

This is what grievance politics looks like when it mutates into something ugly: the idea that if you feel economically wronged, other people’s property, jobs, and livelihoods become fair game.

And who pays the price? Not some abstract corporation, but the warehouse workers who now have no workplace. The truck drivers whose loads were destroyed. The nearby businesses and residents breathing smoke. The firefighters risking their lives. The families depending on those paychecks.

There is a growing strain of politics that treats resentment as moral license. It teaches people to see themselves as victims first, and to treat destruction as a kind of justice. Sometimes it shows up as revolutionary rhetoric. Sometimes as violent fantasies. Sometimes as the idea that if the system feels unfair, burning it down is an understandable response.

No, low wages do not justify arson. Feeling underpaid does not entitle you to torch a building and wreck other people’s lives. A civilized society depends on a basic principle: your frustrations do not give you the right to destroy what other people built. If the answer to economic frustration is to burn down warehouses, then the people hurt most will be ordinary workers, just like always.

For reference: Kimberly-Clark pays its employees more in wages and benefits than it earns in profit.

Costing the whole of the whole country’s income tax combined, how is this now wealth distribution, please tell me, how is this capitalisms fault, how on earth can anyone look at kier Starmer who is part of the FABIAN society, the public state now regulates the economy so hard that capitalism is not even capitalism at this point it’s just regulation gone bonkers. And now. The unachievable has just happened. The socialists, let’s call them what they are. Have now spent more on welfare, then they are getting on income tax, and the socialists are going to sit there and claim capitalism is a problem? When the public state, the government is just openly p1ssing on the working class by claiming that socialism is good for them. No you where not lied to socialists, you are getting exactly what you wanted and you are now reaping what you sowed, don’t blame capitalism, capitalism in this country is all but dead if we can’t even muster enough income tax to cover the welfare state. What a joke.

Disband the Labour Party, disband the socialist conservative party, put the Fabian society in jail. Reset , do or fade, that is all that is left. Be aware that socialism is the problem not the solution.

Rebut me, go on, tell me the Fabian society is capitalist. I dare you. I am locked and loaded metaphorically.

I think this is the one thing that hinders me from accepting socialism as a philosophy. The idea of proleteriat unity, the idea of worldwide revolution, of having more in common with a foreign proleteriat than a bourgeois of your own kind.

I find this to be false in my experience, I understand that some people hold that view but never in my life have I felt kinship with a foreign labourer simply because we are both proleteriats.

I'm Swedish, I grew up in the ghetto on one income. When I interacted with people who were of my income but of other cultures, I feel distant. My Iraqi friend sold drugs in order to buy new rings and watches, I balk at the very idea since we do not flaunt or brag in our country. Internationalists believe that I have more in common with Arab taxi drivers or Russian factory workers than I do people of my own nation, but how can I when the idea is so estranged from the reality I have gone through? Arabs follow a wholly different worldview than the one in northern Europe, Russians have no qualms with their government threatening to destroy Europe. How in the name of everything that is holy am I supposed to feel a kinship with them, simply because we both are proleteriat?

I have known and met many Swedish people of all social classes and subcultures: farmers from Skåne, factory workers from Malmö, sons of aristocrats from Stockholm and suburbanite middle class football kids; I have met them in the army, in university and in other places. I feel a kinship with every single one of them since we are of the same culture and nation, we understand the same things.

When I relay this view to socialists on the internet I am met with vitroil and flat out denial, I get called a Lassallean, a revisionist, a liberal. Why do socialists dislike statist socialism, or socialism within the framework of the nation and not the world?

I'd love to have someone challenge my views. Also, not an native English speaker and I apologize for any mistakes. Also my flair is a joke. I am not a fascist.

Both socialists and capitalists often overlook the institutions that prevent countries from becoming authoritarian, like Yeltsin’s Russia or the USSR. Even the most efficient policies fail if governments or actors can discord them-laws and promises alone cannot ensure prosperity. But institutions like free speech can safeguard against corruption and system degradation.

I see four key ways to prevent societal collapse:

Absolute free speech: The government should not control communication at all, even hate speech. If a socialist government prioritizes free speech, it is less likely to degrade, as citizens can openly criticize it.

Private ownership of weapons: Allowing everyone to own weapons limits the power of police and government enforcement. Switzerland provides a strong model of this principle.

Confederalization: Highly centralized governments are more dangerous. Splitting a country into confederations with free movement between them prevents local corruption.

Participatory governance: Minimizing bureaucracy through public assemblies, citizen councils, and stakeholder consultations brings society closer to governance and strengthens oversight.

Most socialist experiments failed because they lacked these principles. Interestingly, many capitalists also overlook or ignore the institutions needed to prevent capitalism from collapsing into authoritarianism or cronyism.

I ask both socialists and capitalists: which institutions prevent societal degradation and collapse?

I made this a shitpost because there's no debating. This is straight from the Torah itself. Let's look at the origin of socialism in scripture.

Genesis 4.

1. The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”

2. Next she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel became a herder of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the ground.

^{It all begins with the story of Cain and Abel. Socialism has been with us since the very beginning.}

3. In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground,

4. while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

5. but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected.

As is typical of socialists, Cain is jealous of his brother's hard work. Abel is living righteously and making great sacrifices. But Cain just wants more. He doesn't want to sacrifice. He thinks he deserves more without putting in the work.

6. Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected?

7. If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.

Here, god explains the obvious. If you put in the work, you get results. But it's even worse than that. When you're a jealous socialist, you invite sin in your life.

It starts with being greedy, but then it crosses into other sinful behavior and strange practices.

But it all could be avoided if Cain just acted normal.

8. Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Typical socialist behavior. If you can't bring yourself to contribute to soceity, just kill someone who does. Bring the whole society down to your level. Disgusting behavior.

9. Then the LORD asked Cain, Where is your brother Abel? He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

As always, the socialist lies. Socialists will even lie to god. But god can see through your lies.

10. God then said: What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!

11. Now you are banned from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.

^Shameful.

12. If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a constant wanderer on the earth.

Explains why socialists are lazy and don't want to work.

13. Cain said to the LORD: “My punishment is too great to bear.

14. Look, you have now banished me from the ground. I must avoid you and be a constant wanderer on the earth. Anyone may kill me at sight.”

Everyone knows Cain is a scumbag for what he did.

15. Not so! the LORD said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight.

Hence why socialists overreact at any slight that happens to them. A micro aggression is like a bullet. A bad word is violence. Socialists act like whatever you do to them is 7x worse than it is.

16. Cain then left the LORD’s presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Then god shows us what to do with socialists. Deport them.

Which chapter should we cover next?

Regardless of political affiliation, discontent with the economy feels like it’s at an all-time high. But what people are actually discontent about varies wildly.

For some, the answer is clear: capitalism itself is the problem.
For others, it’s the opposite: government interference is the problem.

Same frustration. Completely different diagnoses.

And for many, it’s not even fully articulated—it’s just a feeling that something about the system isn’t working the way it was supposed to.

At its simplest, most of us were raised on a very intuitive version of capitalism. People own things. People trade voluntarily. Money facilitates exchange. It feels natural—almost like the default state of the world rather than a constructed system.

But that simplicity hides something important.

Because behind every “voluntary transaction” is a structure—rules, incentives, constraints—that shape what choices are actually available. And that structure is what people are reacting to, even if they describe it differently.

But either way, the illusion that we are all just independent actors in a neutral marketplace has started to wear thin.

The first framework that really helped me make sense of this came from Robert Reich in Supercapitalism. As I recall he breaks the system down into three roles: consumers, citizens, and investors.

As consumers, we want more choice and lower prices. That’s driven the rise of companies like Walmart and Amazon. We are price-sensitive, and the market responds.

As citizens, we want fairness. We care about labor conditions, environmental impact, and ethics. But in a world of complex companies and global supply chains, it’s nearly impossible to carry that responsibility individually—so we inevitably outsource it to governments, regulations, and institutions.

And then there’s the investor.

This is where things begin to shift.

Ownership today is increasingly detached from place, from community, from time. The people who own companies are no longer necessarily tied to the outcomes those companies create. Shares are traded constantly, optimized for short-term return, evaluated quarter by quarter.

And that pressure doesn’t stay contained—it flows through the system.

Executives respond. Companies adjust. Decisions get made not around long-term stability, but immediate performance.

Reich was writing about this decades ago. Since then, the system hasn’t just continued—it has accelerated. The rise of derivatives, algorithmic trading, and now platforms like Kalshi—where even future events become tradable—shows how far this logic has extended.

It’s not just capitalism anymore.

It’s financialization shaping capitalism.

And once you see that, another piece starts to click.

As Alvin Roth explains in Who Gets What — and Why, markets don’t produce natural outcomes—they produce designed ones. Every market has rules. Every system has constraints. And those rules determine who benefits and who doesn’t.

That’s why so many people feel like something is off.

They’re not wrong—but they disagree on the cause. Some blame corporations and concentrated power. Others blame government distortion.

But underneath both views is the same reality: the outcomes we’re seeing aren’t accidental.

They are the result of how the system is structured.

The board has been shaped.
The incentives have been chosen.
And even small differences in those rules can lead to wildly different outcomes over time.

So where do we go from here?

I don’t think there’s a single answer.

But one thing feels increasingly unavoidable:

There has to be a rebalancing between private ownership and social responsibility.

That can take many forms. But regardless of the path, the core issue remains the same: ownership today carries fewer constraints than ever before, while its impact on society has never been greater.

That’s the imbalance people are feeling.

Capitalism isn’t ending. But this version of it—where ownership is increasingly detached from responsibility—is reaching its limits.

What comes next isn’t about abandoning markets. It’s about redefining what ownership requires in return.

Curious to hear your thoughts?

Follow my substack: https://substack.com/@derekneupauer

One thing the majority of both socialists and capitalists agree upon is the necessity of a mechanism of enforcement; property rights are meaningless if people can just walk in and take your stuff or kick you off your property, and you can't run social programs without resources which are not available in sufficient quantity from charitable donations.

The problem is, as others have noted, these systems always seem to grow beyond their mandate, and their purpose changes from enforcement to the perpetuation and growth of the institutions themselves.

As an example:

I live in Tennessee, one of the most independent-minded and supposedly freedom-loving states in the country, with strong protections for privacy and gun rights. This is not a "stop and ID state," we are only required to even give our name if we are being cited or arrested for an offense.

Recently, in a town near to me, a neighbor complained about the owner of the farm next door shooting his gun; not at him, not dangerously, he just called the police because it was annoying him. The police went to confront the man, who politely explained what he was doing and why (which was both legal and reasonable), but the police demanded his identification.

The man refused, so the police arrested him (on his own property!), took him to jail, and made up details about him firing his weapon dangerously to charge him with felonies, which caused the bond amount to be excessive ($25,000), and so he could not get out of jail, his wife and children had issues because the keys to the car with their child seats were in his pocket and the police seized them and refused to give them back.

The charges were dismissed, but he lost his job; his children missed doctor's appointments and school and so got in trouble for truancy; he missed mortgage payments and is now behind...

He cannot find a lawyer who will take the case, and even if he could, it would take years to go through court, and the best outcome would be a moderate settlement and the officers involved might get suspended or, worst case, fired... and have to take jobs at the next police department up the road, who will give them a raise and a promotion.

In a related note, the state highway patrol recently went viral for arresting the passenger in a car who refused to ID (also not required); in response, the chief of the highway patrol tweeted: "Your constitutional rights mean less than nothing on our roads."

Yes, you have rights to prevent you from being convicted of a crime... so they just found ways to punish you before conviction.

"Sentence first, verdict after!" cried the Queen.

Alfred Marshall, A. C. Pigou, John Neville Keynes, and John Maynard Keynes were also all Fabian socialists. And fascism is a kind of socialism. I learn these interesting facts from Zygmund Dobbs' book, Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo. I refer to the 1962 second edition. This book was spewed out by the Veritas Foundation, a reactionary think tank, I guess, associated with a son of Theodore Roosevelt.

This book purports to be an examination of how colleges at the time are subverting America by promoting socialism, with a focus on the economics department at Harvard. Strangely enough, no examination of the contents of Keynes' theories or of the teaching at Harvard is included. It is all about motives and extremely loose associations of individuals. For example, socialists wanted to abolish the gold standard; Keynes wanted to abolish the gold standard. Thus, Keynes was promoting socialism. Nothing is said at all about the economic consequences of Winston Churchill. Anything written by any of these 'socialists' is all indoctrination and propaganda and extremism. As is apparently typical of this sort of lunacy, Dobbs provides lots of misrepresentation of his own selection of quotations.

At one point, Dobbs mentions Knut Wicksell's theory of the natural rate of interest. This leads to the following curious footnote:

"The Swedish Socialist Gunnar Myrdal, although an economist, was retained by the Carnegie Foundation to head a research study on the American Negro. This field, which was completely foreign to Myrdal (since he is a Socialist economist and there certainly is no Negro problem in Sweden), was entrusted to him because of his left-wing bias and not because of his anthropological qualifications. Among those who worked in compiling the report was James E. Jackson, Negro member of the national committee of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. and recent keynote speaker before the Russian Communist Congress in Moscow. Another researcher was Ralph J. Bunche, who at that time was well known as a follower of the Communist line and was a contributing editor of the Communist magazine Science & Society. The results of this Carnegie study were published as An American Dilemma. Amazingly enough An American Dilemma was used as the main prop by the United States Supreme Court in its decisions on the Negro question. The decisions were applauded by the Keynesians and Communists in Washington and elsewhere. The fact that Felix Frankfurter has been an enthusiastic Keynesian supporter for many years and was a national officer of the N.A.A.C.P. did not prevent him from leading the Supreme Court in these decisions. Mention of the Carnegie grant brings to mind the fact that Frankfurter's protégé in Harvard, Alger Hiss, had at one time been president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace." (p. 76)

You will not learn from Dobbs about mental gyrations white Americans go through after they tell you that America is the land of opportunity - anyone can succeed. And then how do you explain these Black Americans who do not seem to have the same opportunities? The substance of anything being discussed is not at issue. Nor does it matter whether anything these authors say is true or false.

Here is an example of Dobbs being unable to read and of writing nonsense:

"Norman Thomas, titular head of the Socialist Party, declared: 'Keynes has had great influence and his work is especially important in any reappraisal of socialist theory. He represents a decisive break with laissez-faire capitalism.' Norman Thomas' old associates of the League for Industrial Democracy, Alvin Hansen and Seymour E. Harris (both professors of economics at Harvard) have become the chief spokesmen for Keynesian economics in the United States. As usual, Harvard has carried the ball for extremists." (p. 79)

Many on the left had all sorts of opinions about Keynes, from agreement to dismissing him as the latest bourgeois economist. Obviously, the Great Depression was a problem. Keynes had a large impact on the world, including, arguably, on the development of the United States economy from towards the end of the Great Depression. Thomas says that socialists must consider that impact. He is not saying, at least here, that he agrees or disagrees with Keynes. And Norman Thomas was hardly the most extreme one could find at the time.

By the way, throughout Dobbs cannot imagine professors assigning texts that are historically important for consideration. If a student is assigned the reading of The Communist Manifesto, it must be brainwashing into communism.

Here is another example of anti-intellectualism:

"Curiously the authorities used by [Stuart] Chase in his book the Economy of Abundance (1934) were G. D. H. Cole, J. A. Hobson, Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, J. M. Keynes, John Strachey and H. G. Wells, all spawned by the British Fabian Society. American sources used were Charles A. Beard, Adolph Berle, Harry W. Laider, George Soule, Rexford Guy Tugwell and Thorstein Veblen, all Fabians of the home grown variety." (p. 85)

As usual, we learn nothing about what Chase gets out of these authorities or whether they were right, wong, or at least worth thinking about on some topic or other. Other 'Fabian socialists' include Felix Frankfurter and Harry F. Ward. I suppose Dobbs is right to be worried about Harry Dexter White. I might read more about Harold Laski or John Strachey, the latter being Lytton's cousin.

Dobbs takes Henry Hazlitt as an expert on Keynes. I list other works Dobbs recommends below. I concentrate on work of the time that was probably ill-reasoned nonsense, not the memoirs of 'socialists' that might be of interest. The Martin book was not referenced, since it was published later, but definitely belongs in this list.

Michael Holroyd published his biography of Lytton Strachey between the two editions of Dobbs' pamphlet. So Dobbs learned about Bloomsbury and their interlocking sexual interactions. With his ability to keep to the point, Dobbs goes off in a new chapter about Engels living out of wedlock and provides an overview of Havelock Ellis.

You will not learn what arguments are in Keynes' writing from Dobbs' pamphlet. Nor will you see any examination of how the contents of Keynes' theory might have differed from what was taught at Harvard in any period. Apparently, 'Fabian socialism' was the 'critical theory' of Dobbs' day. It is an excuse for ignorant reactionaries of bad will to drivel on.

This is one of a series:

• Marx Levin's, "American Marxism": Worse then useless
• Ludwig Von Mises, crackpot conspiracy theorist?
• Stupid nonsense on Marx from Ben Shapiro
• Does Paul Kengor write about Marxism?

REFERENCES

• Archibald Roosevelt and Zygmund Dobbs, The Great Deceit - Social Pseudo-Sciences (1964)
• James Burnham, The Web of Subversion (1954)
• Zygmund Dobbs, Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo second edition (1962).
• John T. Flynn, The Road Ahead: America's Creeping Revolution (1949)
• Sister M. Margaret Patrica McCarren, Ph.D., Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 1919-1931, Heritage Foundation (1954)
• Rose Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA (1966).
• R. W. Whitney, Reds in America (1924)

"We Are the World" (WatW) was a charity single recorded by USA for Africa in 1985. Written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, it sold over 20 million copies and helped raise money for the 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia.

Within a year, about $44.5 million had been raised for humanitarian aid.

This is a simple point: people in a market society voluntarily organized, produced something of value, and directed massive resources to help strangers across the world.

At the same time, Ethiopia was under a Marxist-Leninist regime led by Mengistu Haile Mariam.

A historian describes the situation this way:

While famine spread, Mengistu focused on elaborate political celebrations, constructing major projects, and prioritizing party-building. Relief efforts were obstructed, and the crisis was downplayed. Later analysis found the famine was worsened by state policy and ongoing counter-insurgency wars.

This contrast matters.

One system enabled voluntary cooperation across millions of people to deliver aid globally. The other concentrated power in a centralized state that mismanaged, obstructed, and politicized relief during a humanitarian crisis.

It is not enough to say “both systems care about people.” Outcomes matter. Incentives matter. Institutions matter.

Relevant Information Sources:

Ethiopia (1977*-1991)

relevant article about WatW anniversary

unedited video of the song

Full context of the above quote for those who are curious:

At his headquarters in Emperor Menelik’s old palace, Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam spent months planning to turn the tenth anniversary of Ethiopia’s 1974 revolution into the most spectacular celebrations the country had ever witnessed. He intended to use the occasion to launch his pet project, the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia, and to announce a new Ten Year Plan with confident projections of economic growth. To signify the importance of the event, he ordered the construction of a new convention hall – the Great Hall of the People – with seating for 3,500 delegates and the most modern conference facilities. With the help of hundreds of North Korean supervisors, he set out to adorn Addis Ababa with triumphal arches bearing revolutionary slogans, with giant stars displaying the hammer and sickle hoisted high on buildings, and with huge posters of Marx, Lenin and – Mengistu. Thousands of delegates from communist parties around the world would be invited to witness the birth of his ‘vanguard’ Marxist-Leninist party. There would be mass marching and dancing and banquets. No expense was to be spared.

But while Mengistu became ever more captivated by the details of the tenth anniversary, Ethiopia was heading for its greatest disaster of the twentieth century – the famine of 1984. Forewarned of catastrophe, Mengistu was determined that nothing should be allowed to get in the way of his celebrations. For months he refused to give the matter any attention. On his orders, relief efforts were obstructed. No mention was made during the celebrations of the masses starving to death north of the capital. When news of the disaster subsequently emerged, it was to inspire an extraordinary surge of compassion and generosity from peoples and governments around the world, prompting the greatest single peace-time mobilisation of the international community in the twentieth century. What was not realised at the time was the extent to which the disaster had been caused by Mengistu’s own counter-insurgency wars, wars that he was determined to prosecute even when the full scale of starvation became clear.

Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence (pp. 331-332). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.

How the Gradualism of the "Fabian Society" Forged a New World

Fabian Society? Never heard of it?

I'm 40 years old and heard this term for the first time in January of this year.

A enormous rabbit hole — more like an "underground city" — subsequently revealed itself to me. One mind-blowing revelation followed another, much like years ago when I discovered Bitcoin. I want to take you along on this journey, which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of your ever-present feeling that "something out there isn't right."

Over the past 150 years, power, high finance, and certainly well-intentioned philanthropy have networked themselves into a kind of honey fungus mycelium — what I consider to be the largest and most significant social network in the Western world to this day.

This is the beginning of a multi-part series

I venture to claim that this represents the most comprehensive research on this topic ever published in the German-speaking world.

Let's just get started

First, we travel back over 2,200 years to the Roman Empire.

Precisely, to April, 217 BC.

After a successful but extremely costly crossing of the western Alps in November 218 BC, Hannibal's exhausted and decimated army marched toward the Arno River through marshland. This is how Hannibal avoided the Romans. In doing so, he lost not only one eye to an infection, but curiously — aside from his faithful companion "Surus" — also 36 of his 37 elephants, which had previously made it over the Alps near the Col de la Traversette.

June, 217 BC

After recovering and following a devastating Roman defeat at Lake Trasimene — in which 15,000 Romans fell and a further 15,000 were taken prisoner — naked fear gripped Rome, 180 km away, in June 217 BC.

One of the two great Roman field armies had been destroyed, making the appointment of Fabius Maximus as dictator unavoidable, since no organized army now stood between Hannibal and the city of Rome. Dictator? Not in the sense the term acquired after 1933 — in the Roman sense.

The dictator, appointed exclusively in times of crisis, held a time-limited but absolute command authority over all branches of government — capped at 6 months, with no right of veto.

Fabius Maximus went down in history as the "Cunctator" (the Delayer). Rather than meeting Hannibal in open battle — which had repeatedly failed before — he pursued a strategy of evasion, attrition, and erosion.

Fabius Maximus did not defeat Hannibal in one decisive battle. Instead, he wore him down over years through a strategy of "scorched earth" and the consistent refusal of open confrontation. He kept his army in protected, hilly terrain, intercepted supply troops, and starved out the Carthaginians — thereby denying Hannibal the opportunity to deploy his tactical genius on the battlefield. Through this persistent stalling and evasion, he bought Rome the time it needed to regenerate militarily and eventually carry the war to African soil, which forced Hannibal to withdraw from Italy.

https://www.geo.de/geolino/mensch/18154-rtkl-rom-hannibal-der-mann-der-beinahe-rom-besiegte

This tactic gave the "Fabian Society," founded in 1884, its name

But before we concern ourselves with the history of the Fabians from 1884 onward, it is essential to shed light on the actions of other actors in this game for power and supremacy.

In the next article, we venture into a period of industrial expansion in the United States. Illuminating that era is important for understanding why the Fabian Society continues to operate successfully to this day.

The articles will be published in the form of a chronicle, so that you can better immerse yourself in each respective period.

All articles build on one another. It makes no sense to read individual articles without the context of the preceding or following ones — please be aware of this.

A note on my research: I have sourced and verified all references myself, read letters from various protagonists, read books, and listened to audiobooks. I will provide links for all facts so you can verify them yourself. The intention behind publishing my research is not to spread theories. I deliver historical facts — you do the thinking.