(yes, we exist, we read Marx AND Adam Smith - imagine that)

I am pretty sure Marx read Adam Smith too, so I do not see why this would be controversial.

The biggest ignorance of most socialists and indeed communists is the idea that capitalism is a political system. It is not.

Well, capitalism is primarily an economic system (more on that later, I guess), but as it influences and is influenced by politics, it cannot be separated from the political system that fosters it (everything is political, what parts of our societies can really be claimed to exist truly outside the sphere of politics anyway?).

what if I’m a libertarian socialist, or even an anarchist

If you claimed to be a libertarian or anarchist without being a socialist, I would not take you seriously since the former necessitates the latter. I also thoroughly agree that

Anyone who believes that a “free market” is an unregulated market is an idiot

and would like to add that anyone saying a classist society is compatible with anarchism is so as well, since the power and authority both inherent to and needed for upholding said social classes is contradictory to the nature of anarchism, and moreso of individual freedom itself.

Now onto your description of capitalism:

Capitalism is a system where we virtualised ownership or property as a form of valuing said property automatically, instead of employing appraisers everywhere

I am not quite sure what you mean by “virtualised ownership”, but I would infer that you mean that capitalism is characterized by property (including capital) being realized as private property, through which independent firms and people may extract surplus value from the product of labour and thus accrue capital.

Now, both labour and value take on specific meanings within marxism, different from that of Ricardian economics (and thus neoclassical economics), which is developed from the works of Adam Smith. I am not quite sure whether you advocate for more of this (neo)classical valuation when you speak of “employing appraisers everywhere”, but this valuation is a feature of capitalism that Marxists ultimately seek to destroy by rendering obsolete (I would also like to add that it is a “bad” valuation, since it places value of commodities in a pseudo arbitrary fashion where a portrait of Hitler might garner more value than a vaccine).

It’s not a political system, it’s not a judicial system, and it never was. That’s the big brain rot, the big conjob, that and the fact that the liberals will always claim there’s only one form of capitalism - which again, China has thuroughly disproved. It’s literally just usury, but applied to property rather than currency. It’s a tool, a double edged sword, which in it’s current, centralised form fosters dialectal matetialism - yeeeey Marx & Engels.

Surely we could categorize different “types” of capitalism, but why bother when all are bad and need to be abolished for the sake of humanity? I understand how you connect private property to usury, since on a surface level it bears similarity. However, private property in the form of capital is much more nefarious as to how it exploits the labour power of the proletariat than a mere contractual transaction (I lend you X amount and you pay me back 1.2 * X amount). It is inseparable from the social conditions that force the proletariat to sell their labor power, not at a freely agreed upon price, but by the price the capitalists are able to enforce om them through their commodification, i.e. valuation, of labour.

I would say that my reading comprehension is okay, but I am unable to discern how the subject of your last sentence, that I referred to above (are you still talking about capitalism?), is somehow “fostering” dialectical materialism, to which you seem confusingly sarcastically enthusiastic about.

I can assure you that I would indeed not like to see the world burn, since I as well value human beings and all the other entities that live within the world. I also am very much sceptical of so called “strong men” with simple solutions, even though that does not dissuade me from advocating appropriation of private property on behalf of the public.

Both are scapegoats. You need the individual, you need the community, you need the collective.

Socialism is anything but. A socialist mode of production is the means by which the individuals may flourish. I tried to arrive at it earlier while talking about how libertarianism necessitates socialism. A social contract is necessary, because true individualism is not possible for multiple beings living in the same space, i.e. with cojoining spheres of influence.

If my actions influences the world of others, and by extension their possible actions or results thereof, we have arrived at the need for a social contract that allows both of us to act “freely”. This is what socialism functionally is, and why you cannot reject it as neither a libertarian, anarchist nor a humanist

Now, I would assume you are feeling that I am being unfair to you since this is not directly what you say you are rejecting:

Don’t come here with that bullshit, because then I’ll reject you like I reject centrists, moderates, conservative, social democrats or any of the other liberal rebrandings, let alone tankies and “rip the system down” imbeciles who have blood on the tooth.

I reject all of that, because for thousands of years, naturalism has reigned. It’s time for humanism to take it’s rightful place, and that rejects all political ideologies and forces you to actually think - which people don’t like to do.

However, by rejecting all political ideologies and in its absence believing that “thinking” will transform our current state of society into a socialist mode of production that allows that which you are welcoming, I think you have misunderstood the role of ideology and are de facto rejecting the future you describe to want. Ideology is the product of thinking really hard about the world that is, the world we want and the means by which we could achieve it. As such, ideology is the tool that we agree upon to make actual change, other than what we already made inside our own minds while thinking really hard.

I would like to see humanism in its rightful place, as a product of a socialist mode of production. I am therefore willing to exert my will upon the world, along with my comrades that want the same.

The speech by leftist leader Mélenchon is an indication of what’s ahead. He says he will not negotiate with Macron, and Macron has refused to negotiate with him.

Source

every other liberal leading party in Europe, whose been controlling narrative and economy for over half a century

I do not think that is how capitalism works. My bad if you are indeed attempting to describe the aesthetics of the tyranny of the bourgeoisie.

Let us hope the poll shows truth. According to the Associated Press:

A final national tally is expected by early Monday (local time).

Did not know about MAM, but that sounds great. I also hosted a Mumble server for my friends for over 5 years, but it was basically never used because there existed a one-stop solution (Discord) that allowed for more stuff^TM. TIL Jitsi was powered by XMPP, thanks. I personally have no problem with fragmenting functionality between different specialized applications, but it will always be a tough sell for those I know because they believe they can have it all in their cool app.

At the end of the day, communication services usefulness are upwards limited by the people you can reach through them. The need for everything to be easy and centralized for the user (ironic with respect to server federation, I know) is what has made me so hopeful for the Matrix protocol, since it is designed for allowing this while still being decentralized at its core.

I have no experience with the last two options you mentioned, but I was of the understanding that XMPP does not have video group call functionality. Also, it has been a long time since I used XMPP at all, but syncing history between sessions was not possible to me then. These are features that would be deal breakers to miss.

Well, in their FAQ the Matrix team states that they love both IRC and XMPP and that for those whom these options perform better they wish the best of luck continuing to use them. Matrix does have some qualities they do not and they do not mean to compete with them, rather to put up bridges so as to federate between these decentralized protocols.

Personally, I want to move away from communicating through Discord with many of my friends. I do not believe neither IRC nor XMPP would entice them, but Matrix could as soon as they finish implementing their new video call capabilities. The same goes for community projects that use Discord as a replacement for forums.

Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!

What fundemental aspect of Matrix is both causing too heavy performance degradation while also being unfixable or impossible to reimplement?

I guess it depends on the specific laws of your country, but IMO gifts that have any real value save symbolics are off the table (even if not strictly illegal). I would just send a heartfelt letter expressing my gratitude. That would certainly make them feel very much appreciated!

Anyone thinking bourgeoisie extortion is fundamentally different from that of feudal lords need to reexamine the process of appropriation of surplus value.

How was I racist? Seems to me that your retort targets some untrue idea in your head about who I am rather than what I actually wrote.

I also do not understand why you made this post if you do not actually make an attempt at trying to understand the replies in return.

The first claim is just straight plain old racism, while the second reeks of confused lib. Either way, calling someone a slave in this context is almost certainly meant as an insult to the political organisation of the state and not to its people. This distinction is important with respect to moderation.

I consider the proletariat of capitalist societies to be slaves by definition. Thus if I were convinced that the PRC was capitalist, I could stand behind this sentiment.

Eh, to the extent that Hexbear meme-culture is both prevalent and constitutes as participation in bad faith, that would be true. This was not an example of this, which only serves to prove that the reply was actually in bad faith itself.

Thanks! The increasing difference between material conditions of the upper middle class / petit bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the often ensuing split of the middle class into these two, is definitely a contention point that allows for quick fascist demagogues to capitalize on. I see that the loss of “old privileges” for the former fortunate middle class allows for admiration of some greater past, which plays well into the fascist textbook.

However, I do think the far right’s success within young males, for example, is a different symptom of the same condition. That young people whose futures are diminished by capitalist exploitation tend towards fascism as their solution, while fully educated about its past and its options, is what baffles me the most.

Maybe I am overlooking something and that is why I did not get your point originally nor that which I described above, but to me there seems to be a disconnect of logic that is exceptional, even when taking into consideration that we are talking about supporters of the far right.

Would you mind expanding on what you mean by material conditions and fascism in relation to old privileges (don’t know what you mean by the latter)?

Yeah, obviously they are the laughing stock here… You should pay more mind to content than affiliations. Even though dbzer0 is a cool admin with a cool community, your comment does not portray you as such.

Lots of nazis in the south for real.

Unity of the left is a double edged sword. Sure it means increased bargaining power for change. Also, it usually deteriorates into a hostage situation where the most centrist “left” party in the coalition says they will cooperate with the fascists, if the other left parties do not reduce their call for change to just symbolic issues.

I would just like to digress by pointing out that I found your discussion interesting and that .world defederating .ml would kill potential future ones like it. It also seems to me that rejecting ML impulses, say by disassociating the .ml and .world users, would not contribute to organising society in a way that would allow for the revolution you speak of.

MLs do not go away by ignoring them. One of their main tenets, which they are to be admired for, is precisely their obstinancy to making themselves heard. If I understood you correctly as a proponent of a solution that is yet to be evolved, why reject the input of MLs? I am personally curious about learning more about anarchism, that is if the theory is not so weak it would but all be destroyed by the breath of a ML.