You seem to expect people call you that a lot.

Capitalism is a mode of production built on private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. You’re confusing the values espoused by liberals with the actual system itself as it exists in the real world, and as such are trying to pretend the same system that created the triangle trade is somehow anti-slavery. Capitalism caused and accelerated the slave trade when the colonizers needed agrarian labor for the land they were settling after genociding the natives.

Full support to the PFLP, yes I commend Hamas for their resistance to the genocidal settler-colonial project and the US Empire (and their vassals in Europe) backing it.

i never saw a fash take on blahaj

Unfortunately I’ve seen a few, though much rarer than .world.

Hmmm, not quite the same. To rip an example from the article, the advantage of trains over cars is that you can essentially fit more people into them in less space, where they can exist comfortably and without risk of traffic accidents. A library economy with cars, for example, might serve as an addition to this, but not the backbone.

I like Roderic Day’s The Case for Socialized Ownership. It extends beyond cars, though, and is focused on the inherent problems with individualist-focused solutions for societal problems. It’s included in my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. It isn’t solarpunk, though, but Marxist.

No problem!

We’re very internationalist, there’s a large community in the global south. It’s still dominated by European and Statesian users for now, but thankfully it’s more diverse than that.

I’m well aware of the history of liberalism and how its apologists try to hide its use to justify colonialism, imperialism, crushing worker movements, etc. I’ve read the dictionary definitions. You aren’t changing the way liberalism functions in real life, just trying to avoid complicity in the damage its caused by trying to paint a better picture of it.

Yes, I’m aware of britannica’s over-simplified, useless, liberal definition. It reduces imperialism from a well-understood phenomenon with explainable causes, mechanics, and weaknesses, into a vague, vibes-based definition about “influence.” All countries influence each other for their own gain, that doesn’t make them imperialist.

Luxemburg is a tax haven for foreign capital, Walmart used it to dodge billions in taxes despite not having a real presence there. The citizens of Luxemburg benefit from foreign capitalists using it to dodge taxes, and in this way participate and benefit from imperialism. You’re right about one thing, it is a consequence of free trade, which is why free trade is bad.

You think that by changing the name of a thing that you’ve changed its nature.

Lemmy was made and is developed by communists, if you’re anti-communist you probably aren’t going to like it here.

Lithuania having a large nationalist movement and a far-right resurgance doesn’t disqualift that the vast majority voted to stay within the USSR. This is further proven by the dramatic drop in people supportive of capitalism in Lithuania from 75% right after the dissolution to around 50% by 2009.

You’re incorrect on a few key factors.

1. The economic system is the base, but laws, culture, the state, etc is the superstructure that reinforces the base. The base is what determines the superstructure, and they work together.

2. Capitalists, those with capital, are those that control the state. This is because whoever controls the large firms and key industries, the principle aspects of the economy, controls the state via controlling production and distribution.

3. The fact that the global north is controlled by the wealthiest of finance capital doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. Calling the fact that banks control Europe and the US Empire a “hallucination” is just cope.

If the global north would stop trading with the global south, to “fix” this supposed exploitation, people like you would be the first to start crying about how an embargo on the south is preventing them from moving up the value chain in production. There is no logic here, just accusations. You have nothing to show but an attitude

If the global north stopped trading with the global south, we’d collapse overnight, because the bulk of our consumption rests on value created by the global south stolen by us. The way for the global south to escape underdevelopment and overexploitation is to form alliances like the Sahel States, partnering with countries like the PRC that don’t practice imperialism or unequal exchange, and engage in mutual development and cooperation along socialist lines.

Read How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney, and maybe toss in Super-Imperialism: The Origins and Nature of US World Dominance by Michael Hudson and Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism by Vladimir Lenin.

The free movement of capital and the pursuit of profits is the purpose of liberalism, including the devastating impacts on the working classes that come from that. Liberalism is the justification for capitalism, not capitalism itself, and the necessary consequences of capitalist plunder is intrinsic to capitalism.

I recommend reading Domenico Losurdo’s Liberalism - A Counter History.

No? Imperialism is as I already laid out for you, a process by which the global north, dominated by monopoly finance capital, exports capital to the global south to super-exploit foreign labor for super-profits. Luxembourg’s role in that international system is as a foreign tax haven for the imperialists.

Anarchism isn’t communism, though, it’s its own thing. Administration is not against communism. Further, I have no idea what you mean by “a natural push,” the basis of communism is in large-scale industry and not in small communalism. I also don’t know what you mean by “the very much not communist parts of Marxism-Leninism,” you don’t define this nor elaborate on where you’re getting your ideas about communism from. The fact that socialist states have had administrators does not make them “rulers,” nor does it imply they form a distinct class.

The US Empire is still a settler-colony, to be clear.

The proletariat as the ruling class is the basis of socialism. The existence of capitalists within the confines of socialism is a contradiction that must be worked out, not evidence to the lack of socialism. Russia is no longer socialist, so I’m not sure why you bring it up, it’s an excellent example of why capitalism is worse.

If you’re opposed to the only major implementation of socialism in real life, then that’s the reality of your stance.

It absolutely is, though. For further reading:

1. This Soviet World - Anna Louise Strong
2. Soviet Democracy - Pat Sloan
3. Is the Red Flag Flying? - Albert Syzmanski
4. Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance - Roland Boer

There’s many more I could link. Simply stating something doesn’t make it true, you aren’t a wizard and your words aren’t magic. Instead, you have to actually do the due dilligance and measure up theory to reality.

Incorrect, the overwhelming majority of socialists worldwide uphold socialism as it exists in the real world, unless you’re talking purely about socialists in the west. The USSR was run by the working classes, and was more progressive than the west when it comes to queer rights and especially women’s rights. They had an advanced form of democracy outlayed in Pat Sloan’s Soviet Democracy.

It wasn’t the workers who ended the USSR, but a coup, the ones who led this coup being the modern oligarchs in these post-socialist states. The majority wanted to preserve it:

I speak with liberals all the time, you’re again confusing the values espoused by liberalism to justify capitalism with the actual material system as it exists in the real world. As for imperialism, it functions as follows:

-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.

-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.

-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.

-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.

-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.

The global north, Europe included, uses this export of capital to super-exploit foreign labor for super-profits. It also engages in unequal exchange, where the global south is prevented from moving up the value chain in production, allowing the global north to charge monopoly prices for commodities produced in the same labor hours.