Around the same time, crypto will make traditional money worthless. The only wealthy ones will be those who invested early. Trust me.

I agree.

Do the meanings of words vary or change based on rhetorical stance, cultural context, or historic period?

Are mainstream media and mainstream practices the precedent you understand as the one to guide your choices toward the objectives you identify as meaningful?

The law protects private property.

If you defend the law, how would you overcome the wealth accumulation of billionaires through the legal construct of private property?

There may not be such an event in the foreseeable future, or at any rate, not in the next few days or weeks.

However, the request is not based on a worry about semantics, but rather an observation that language influences how people think and feel.

Preferring language such as claim or steal over earn helps emphasize that workers have an interest in eliminating a class who lives by our labor.

Using language as you have done serves to vindicate the class disparity, to erase the class antagonism, and to protect the interests of the owning class.

Please consider referring to the income of billionaires not as earnings.

Earning is based on achievement or merit. Profits are appropriated, claimed, or stolen, but not earned.

However, for those under certain illusions, exposing that the illusions fail on their merits helps some advance beyond them.

Do you know the original source for the poster? Oldies are goodies. It seems some things never change.

You’re really going to be unhappy when Musk becomes crowned as king.

We could say, *We don’t need to seize the means of production. We just need to seize the shares from the shareholders."

Such comments seem to sidestep the deeper analysis.

I feel uncomfortable with “money makes money”.

Those with money use money to make those without money make money for those with money.

Money and corruption often go hand in hand, regardless of the ruling system.

What do you conclude about rulership, if its interests are separate from the interests of the disempowered?

Where the money from the wealthy flows directly into our governance.

Why do the wealthy leverage state power toward their particular interests, and what do you imagine would stop them from doing so?

stop reversing all the incredible progress made in the 20th century

Why was progress made during certain periods, and why was it later reversed during others?

These problems are all solvable under the current system, it just takes lawmakers who give a flying fuck.

Why are lawmakers indifferent to the struggles of the masses, and what would cause them to become more engaged?

I suppose he must be very frugal with household expenses.

you can be anti-Israel without being antisemitic

The media tend to promote the narrative that the Palestinian struggle is inherently antisemitic. They offer very limited information about any liberatory factions that depart from the characterization of being hateful toward Jews.

Many defend Israel based on an assumption of its Jewish inhabitants facing an existential threat.

Based on information from mainstream outlets, there is little reason to doubt it.

I have known only exceedingly few to ignore the events you referenced, and most are themselves ignored if not attacked for doing so.

The objection you seem to hold is that the aspiration to assimilate owners and workers as one class is inseparable from the perpetration of atrocities.

I have come to reject such a view, and in my comment tried briefly to encourage representing events with their total historic context.

Respecting the particular events, the Soviet Union was not the only country to conduct mass detention during the Second World War. I am not inclined to defend any in particular, though others may seek their own opinions.

Socialists at large have tended to oppose structures of power, most notably, the one greater than all others, capital. Unfortunately, capital, as all power, defends itself however it must, ultimately by force. Otherwise, it not would not have continued to hold power.

When violence has erupted, it has been because the powerful would not relinquish their power by will to those who have had been harmed by it and turn against it.

In the present, we should try to understand how we may minimize unnecessary conflict.

At the same time, many are dying and suffering under the cruelty of current systems We should not forget the reasons we seek to end them.

Events from over a hundred years ago have exceedingly limited relevance to the crises of the present day.

Also, I would question the robustness of your claim as you have framed it. Much of the atrocities following the Russian Revolution occurred within the Civil War, which entailed invasions from foreign powers, and in which both sides were perpetrators and complacent in such activity.

Many responses seem to be targeting semantics more than intention.

Exploitation is simply a term chosen to describe a kind of relationship that has appeared on our current economic systems.

You are free to use the same word in other contexts, but your objection is not particularly meaningful in juxtaposition to your previous ones, and your complaints are obviously more directly motivated for obfuscation than by sincerity.

Socialists understand exploitation as the relationship by which one societal class, called owners, claims as profit value generated by the labor provided by another class, called workers.

Such kind of relationship is particular to historical periods, and is not universal or inevitable within any human society generally.

Socialists have found class analysis to be the most broadly useful framework to understand social systems.

Capitalism produces fragmentation and alienation that obstruct broader solidarity.