The argument presented here is based on complete ignorance of the history of the human race.
Reason #1
The concept of property ownership is not a product of capitalism. This idea is literally as old as the oldest known civilization to keep written records, Mesopotamia.
Concern with property, its preservation, and its use shaped not only the Mesopotamian legal tradition but also economic and social practice, notably the ability to sell and to buy land and to transfer property through marriage and inheritance.
In Mesopotamian culture, property was owned by the state, by the temple, and by private families. Records show a distinction between movable property (material goods) and immovable property (land), and the selling, trading, repossessing, inheriting and transfer of all types of property.
Here is an example of a cuneiform tablet recording an agreement about the division of property.
There is even an equivalent of eminent domain:
When Hammurabi asked, “When is a permanent property ever taken away?” he was referring to the established customary legal principle that land was the permanent property of a family.
Hammurabi was not a capitalist. Babylon was not a capitalist nation.
Capitalism did not "invent legal privileges around property".
Reason #2
Conquest of territory happened long before capitalism ever existed. Colonialism was hardly a new concept.
Genghis Khan was not a capitalist. Alexander the Great was not a capitalist. Julius Caesar was not a capitalist. Napoleon Bonaparte was not a capitalist.
If you require citations for this part of my argument, I suggest you find a basic text on world history at your local library.
Conclusion
I'm not going to address the other "reasons" as they are faulty conclusions drawn from the previously addressed faulty premises.
I am not arguing that these things are right and good. I am arguing that linking them specifically to capitalism represents a desperately uneducated understanding of human society and history. This is such a bad take, it reeks of teenage anarchist and "money is the root of all evil" oversimplification.
I think there's a simpler, more personal way to make this point. Here's a few thought experiments:
Imagine you work for a company that lays you off, even while doing enough stock buybacks and executive bonuses such that they could've paid your salary for 1000 years. After you get laid off, imagine what would happen if you just ignored them and continued doing your work.
Or, your landlord doesn't renew your lease because they think you're ugly and they don't want ugly people living in their building. Imagine what happens if you just stay, even if you keep sending the landlord their monthly rent on time.
Both of these situations end with armed, taxpayer-funded agents physically removing you from the premises by any means necessary; it is only the omnipresent threat of state violence that keeps capitalist control over their private property. We don't see the violence because we've been trained from an early age not just to accept it, but to not even see it.
This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.
Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.
It's unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.
One way to save species is by not eating animals. Welcome downvoters. I know you dislike hearing the truth, because you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering.
Am I having a stroke or does the first sentence make no sense? Shouldn't it be more instead of less? If a company always sells for less than the cost to produce, it'll go out of business rather quickly I'd think. Obviously there are temporary strategies like this that are used to beat competitors, but that's not what this is talking about.
The initial point is begging the question. The value of labor is that point at which the seller of that labor and the buyer of that labor agree is fair. This is done, principally, in the way of a wage or salary, among other various methods of compensation.
The rest of the post relies on the first sentence. Thus the entire post is fallacious.
I officially give this the moderator stamp of this being a Good post.
I appreciate a good usage of horror movie font
