All 3 are leftist, based on rejecting individual ownership, and related to FOSS (tangentially in Star Trek’s case), and all 3 are nerdy as hell. They have a lot in common under the hood.
Capitalism does this to itself due to the profit motive. Where once is innovation and brand new disruption becomes petty iteration as this new frontier slowly but surely becomes a well-oiled profit machine. The upside is that FOSS makes replacing this profit-generating soul-sucking bloatware with better alternatives very easy.
Replacing the existing infrastructure of Capitalism by building up parallel structures is a valid means of weakening Capital itself.
Blue. No mistake reversion or bitcoin investing would outweigh possibly never meeting my partner again. With Blue, I have everything I could ever want from this life, with red, I may lose everything important to me now.
It’s 100% true. Just because I may be using terms you may not be quite familiar with doesn’t make me incorrect.
CEO is a job. It’s a managerial position. Usually, it is tied to some form of ownership, but not always. Choosing to take an active role in managing the company as a business owner does not mean your power does not come from ownership, nor does it mean you must take an active role.
Capitalists are necessarily exploitative and entirely unnecessary for running a company. You can have a CEO that owns a company just as much as the Janitor does, which entirely changes the source of the power and removes the ability to exploit the laborers. As an individual owner, a CEO can act in some manners that help workers, but will nevertheless be ruthlessly exploiting them in other manners.
If the CEO owns the business, then that’s a Capitalist CEO. If the CEO earns a salary paid by the owner of the business, then he can be considered Proletarian, though the wage is likely high enough to be closer to petite bourgeoisie. The power dynamic changes entirely.
In Communism, there could not be a Capitalist CEO, for example.