Outwit Playlist on Nostr: Capitalism in a patriachal framework relies on the transfer of wealth between ...

Capitalism in a patriachal framework relies on the transfer of wealth between generations of penis owners. The accumultion of intergenerational wealth through patriachal inheritance structures has started about 5000 years ago (RIP David Graeber) and has been going on ever since, constantly becoming faster. The accumulation of wealth has rached it's current peak, never before have there been so many poor people and never before have the poor been so poor. And it will continue to get worse.

The ideology of consend threatens this trend. If reproductive health becomes accesible to everyone and everyone gets the option to actually choose when and if they want to procreate, women will on average choose to get less than two children. And that would mean the end of Patriachy, therefore the end of capitalism. It would end the priviledges of billionairs. Long term. It could reverse the trend of intergenerational wealth accumulation that has been going on for 5000 years now and could lead to a development towards equality. Which is a thought so scary for everyone who doesn't share the ideology of consent, that they can not let this happen. The reason they are outlawin abortions is because they are a thread to the existential justification of billionairs.

Intergenerational wealth has to be passed on. There is a level of wealth that can simply not be earned within a single humans lifetime. That is what intergenerational wealth is. It is an independent entity, often disguised in the form of family but it can also take other insitutions as a vehiecle to travel from generation to generation. If you inherit such an amount of wealth it is inherently obvious that this wealth comes with power and responsibility. The implicit responcibility of wealth is that it has to be increased.
If you inherit a billion dollars you know your ancestors murdered for that. It's impossible that they have accumulated this wealth without commitic crimes against humanity on a systemic level. Every rich person knows that. That is why owning that amount of wealth requires a justification: It needs to be passed on.

The problem with sexes is that giving birth used to be super dangerous until about ar some point some austrian gynecologist invented bacteria, was murdered for it, and after a few decades of hard work people suddenly started washing their hands and womens live expectancy skyrocketed and is now higher that that of men. But just a century ago giving birth was russian roulette. Which is a problem from the perspective of intergenerational wealth. Women just die to easily. If intergenrational wealth is passed on to women that comes with a lower than fifty fifty chance to be passed on, becaue giving birth is damn dangerous.
So in order for wealth to grow over centuries, over thousands of generations without being broken up, it needs to be passed on from men to men. Women simply don't become old enough to learn how to invest money. That's futile.
The problem with the necesity of a male heir is that the probability of a baby growing a penis is pretty much also fifty fifty. Which means that if you only have two children the probability that you will have a male heir is slightly less than fifty fifty - some children die.
But the probability of producing a male heir should rather be as close to one as possible, from the perspective of the wealth. So women have to be tricked into producing more children than they inrinsically want to. The complicated social prosses for that is now usually described by the term patriachy.
But science came along and changed the default settings of the game. Desinfection all of a sudden raised womens live expectancy so that now they are actually valuable, from the perspective of wealth. Still, most wealth is pased on from men to their sons, but times are actually slowly changing and more and more billionairs choose to actually show the gratitute of considering their daughters real humans and also inheriting wealth to them.
What also changed is contraception, and this is the actual problem. Birth rates dropped. Women who have a choice apparently do no want to be baby machines. Surprize, surprize.
If women had settled to a bit more than two children on average, that would suffice. Now they have a live expectancy that's higher than a pet dogs it does make sense to pass on intergenerational wealth independently from gender. But that still requires the production of at least two children per woman. And legal abortions won't help with that.
In fact, legalizing abortions is the biggest thread capitalism currently has to face. I am very exited to see how this fight will end.