Graffiti in Chelmsford, England

Stockholm Syndrome isn't even a real diagnosis. It came from a bank robbery in Stockholm where the women hostages were thought to be infatuated with their captor. Afterward, a psychologist coined the phrase Stockholm Syndrome and the women were all like, no, we were just trying to not die.

Well, they also refused to testify against their captors and raised money for their legal defense. So there's that.
Bonus fact: the reason they suspected the hostages were infatuated? Because they were scared by the police going in guns blazing, and didn't welcome them with open arms.
It fits closer to trauma bonding

I dunno. I started my own company, and now I work twice as hard as before. My boss (me) doesn't let me take sick days or vacation because we have no employees and would literally have to close to do so... I have self-induced Stockholm Syndrome?

sigh
Fine...
grabs spray paint
unless you own a small business...
There.
You played yourself buddy 👍
- At least I'm earning equity for myself this way, instead of someone else. Le sigh
Lenin says you are still worker.
- Lenin was a fool
- If you were a farmer you'd have to work hard to survive too
- I'm complaining but I'm also not complaining. I guess I'm a capitalist now. A slightly left of centre capitalist. But I also work. Hard.
  I do scientific equipment -- ground penetrating radars and similar. I started this business because I made a device when working for another company and didn't get to own the intellectual property. Which is fair -- they bankrolled it. But I wanted to own my next creation, and to do that, I needed to go independent.
  It took a lot of education (7 years), experience (12 years), and capital (I wagered my entire retirement savings). I work this much because I want the business to snowball, and it is. It means I only pay myself like a student (fortunately I chose a low cost of living city to startup in), but pile up equity in lieu of salary.
  I will note that this is only possible because of socialism providing the safety net that it does in Canada. I had no family wealth. My education was good and relatively cheap. I was student loan free within 5 years. I don't worry about health care. Soon we'll even have dental care on a national scale (2024). I pay taxes and am happy to pay it forward to the society that helped make me, provided they do so smartly. (Radical Centrist.)
  But, yeah, the business model I chose doesn't allow me sick days until we have our first employee.

All I can picture is a CEO driving past that in his limousine and laughing.

😞

I guess it depends on if you define capitalist as someone who owns capital or simply someone who believes in the economic ideology that is capitalism, i.e., you believe land, labor, and capital ought to be privately rather than socially owned. But I suppose that's the point of the graffiti, that if you are not the capital-owning type, then you're probably just stockholm syndrome-d into being a believer in the economic ideology that is capitalism.

But what I also find interesting is that our current system isn't purely capitalist, as we have all sorts of instances by which land or labor or capital aren't privately owned. For instance, when we tax labor, we're partially socializing ownership of people's labor, which is something a purely capitalist system wouldn't do. Heck, not even a purely socialist system would tax labor, because socialism is about social ownership of land and capital, but not labor.

All that said, however, we are certainly closer to capitalism than any other economic system, but still worthwhile to consider the endless complexity that is the economy and how we attempt to describe it. Not even sure where I'm going with this comment anymore, but I hope someone out there finds it at least mildly interesting.

I think this discussion is more interesting around the "labor" part than the "land" part.
Many people think they should own their own house. Few people think they should get buy a percentage of their neighbors' salary for life. And yet that's what private ownership of labor is.
- It's interesting you mention home ownership, as that's actually bundling land and capital. The land on which a home sits is obviously land, but the building atop the land is capital. There's actually a school of though that I subscribe to, Georgism, which believes land ought to be socially owned but not labor nor capital. Specifically, it aims to achieve this by replacing income, sales, etc. taxes with a land value tax (as well as other types of economic land, e.g., externality taxes like carbon tax, as well as severance taxes on natural resource extraction).
  The reason being that the key characteristic of land is that it is naturally occurring and can't be created. The key result from this is that you can get in early, claim dibs, then extract unearned profit from all those with the misfortune of being later to market than you. For example, consider a land speculator who sees their city growing, so they buy up a bunch of vacant land, sit on it for a few years, and resell it when it's shot up in value. They've done no work, and all their profit comes from exploiting the zero-sum nature of finite natural resources.
  Capital, on the other hand, can be created, so long as you don't have high or artificial barriers to entry like restrictive zoning, rampant NIMBYism, monopolistic patent and IP rights, or hyper-expensive university tuition (education is a form of capital, after all).
  And so the core idea of Georgism is we can achieve the goals of socialism by socializing the commons, aka land and natural resources, via taxes and busting down barriers to entry for creation and acquisition of capital, be it housing or education or software or power tools or infrastructure.
  And I think there's a pretty compelling moral argument to it all, like you suggest with how no one would say they feel entitled to a portion of their neighbor's salary for life. You didn't create land, so why should you be able to own and profit off it? But you do create capital (e.g., your own skills and education), and you do do your own labor, so the fruits of those ought to be yours and yours alone.
  Plus, pragmatically, taxes like land value taxes and carbon taxes are known to be just really good policy.
I liked your ramble :)

If you own stock are you like ... sort of a capitalist? A half cap?

You’re the younger sibling with the game controller that’s not plugged in while the older one plays the game.
- Honestly that's such a perfect metaphor. I'm impressed!