>>472479>You have to get caught first.
You have to risk getting caught.
>Not any but some of them, which is already enough.
No that doesn't actually follow either. Picking up loose change and setting a massive wildfire are not equal risks with equally predictable outcomes. It's insane to equate them.
>It's like you've forgotten that capital accumulation is intertwined with crime since its inception.
It's like you're just spewing a bunch of left-adjacent statements you heard without regard for context or whether or not they're actually relevant here. You're making a claim about a specific thing - saying "capitalists do crimes" doesn't inherently support "this specific massive wildfire was set by capitalists in order to reduce land prices." Like you could make exactly the same claim about a random rape or a serial killer or something - maybe the rape was a plot by speculators to lower prices, maybe Ted Bundy was a plot by local speculators to lower land prices… and in either of those cases, it would be more likely
than what you're suggesting, because it would require less risk and be more predictable.
>If you will get caught  then it's a matter of numbers who will have to cope over that. You won't be fucking with some Serco, for instance.
If you get caught, the state would have to take a massive risk in order to protect you. Capitalists as a class
expect their property to be protected, and workers would already be pissed about this even if it wasn't a convoluted arson scheme.
If the local gov't covered for this, it would piss off capitalists on the national level (including petit bourgeoisie,
who are also very rich) who expect not to have their stuff burned down by other capitalists,
and the federal gov't would get involved. It would be an absolute clusterfuck, and it already is a clusterfuck without even getting to that point of conflict.
>Capitalists are not a monolite class, how fucking dense you are ffs.
They are when it comes to owning property
you moron. They're in agreement on the property
>That doesn't mean all of them have the access to these ways.
If you're rich enough to be buying that much land,
then yes, you have access to those means. No one without connections would even be in the market for this to begin with, and if they had that much money then they could just buy land somewhere else
and it would require way less effort and risk. Real estate is an incredibly powerful lobby.
… he says as he flagrantly repeats the same false equivalence I just pointed out.
>Of course, & as you can see, even that is enough to btfo your takes.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and you're proud of it.
>Implying I would be interested in the history of some shitty gothcuck pseudocult figure.
Literally everyone in this thread has heard of her except you. She's extremely well-known, and you have no idea what you're talking about. It's like if you came in not knowing who Marie Antoinette was, so you looked her up and were like "um ACTUALLY she probably didn't say 'let them eat cake.'" No shit, Sherlock!
You came in here without basic reference points. Wrt Bathory, you've just shifted from knowing nothing about this famous historical figure to immediately parroting the revisionist position - which is interesting, because at least there were dead bodies in Bathory's castle. Her guilt, degree of crimes, or innocence is debated, but that's way better evidence than anything you've been using to argue your hypothesis about the fires in Hawaii.