Did you comprehend what I wrote? What imperialism are you talking about?

No. It is a comment on how fascism is a product of capitalism in decay. Since all of these are outspokenly pro capitalism, they want to uphold the underlying contradictions that give rise to fascism in the present and future.

Even the reformists here will only support positive change (mostly domestic) insofar as it lets the system of oppression against the (global) proletariat continue.

I actually think the depiction mimicks the historical event somewhat adequate (at least the Western front) but not in the sense that you do: The US was not the beacon of light that defeated the nazis, that was the Soviet Union. The US and Nazi German fighting was capitalist infighting, similar to that of your democratic leaders and republicans.

Calling everyone involved right wing was a conscious provocation justified by the above.

I only see right wing politicians here doing the usual americanism of invading other parts of the world.

I agree completely. I am also curious about what alternative people who oppose this on a pure anti AI stance would propose. The cat is out of the bag and even slop is enough to deliver credible attacks these days.

IIRC Linus called the latest releases quite big (in size) and I would assume this connects to the number of security fixes that have come about lately.

I think one generally has to assume that state actors are targeting open source projects for supply chain attacks.

The fucking bullshit is US imperialism. You have been bankrolling Israel for your benefit, i.e. to be able to militarily coerce the gulf states into upholding the petrodollar system. You have not been "nice and naive", you have literally been complicit in genocide for monetary gain.

The read a book part was probably overly dismissive, but was a pointer to marxist theory that is materialist and not idealist.

Im saying every society that i am aware of, no matter the title, had a ruling class leaching off the working class.

This is why workers need their own revolution. Capitalism and most western states, particularly the US, came to be through bourgeoise revolutions. Causality wise, this followed due to technological advancements improving the productionary forces.

We as humans have yet to develop that classless society despite 100 years of people drooling and killing over communist theory.

No state has yet made it past the intermediary stage of this development. That does not mean they were not on the right track. The killing part is horrible, but follows from the armed resistance of capital. Violence is a part of every political system, it is just happening in ways not usually recognized.

What you refer to as true capitalism, I am arguing is an idealist view. Idealist in this sense means not part of nor representing material reality. Marxists will claim the ideal form to not only not be present right now, but impossible to achieve due to the mechanics of capitalism itself.

We look at the process of capital accumulation through extraction of surplus labour power as self reinforcing. That means also that the contradictions within the system will reinforce unil reaching a break point.

As an example one could look at how capital consolidation leads to monopolies, how workers are impoverished to the point of not being able to buy the product of their own labour, or how the development of productionary forces lead to the developers, i.e. labourers, manufacture their own replacements.

These are the internal byproducts of capitalist mode of production itself. I have not even touched on the external contradictions happening through imperialism.

To make an analogy: If anyone were to claim that a drug was not actually medicine because it had negative side effects, we might both agree they were wrong. In my view, in the case of your idealist and my materialist view of capitalism, we disagree on the cause and effect in a similar manner.

This is an idealist understanding of what capitalism ought to be, not what it is. This different view is the reason for the contention between us. Most leftists will see capitalism for what it is, not the pipe dream sold to the masses to justify the exploitation of them.

In marxist terms, the lack of oversight and competition is an inherent trait, a contradiction, within capitalism. The solutions anyone can present are faulty remedies that do not solve the underlying issue at play, which is the property relations with regard to labour.

But that’s because it’s intentionally hard to tell if it’s feudalism in a capitalist hat or capitalism in a feudalism hat. That’s what oligarchy is.

No, (modern) oligarchy is a term we may use for the political structure that is supported by capitalism, which is the mode of production. In feudal society, oligarchs were nobles with landed power. In capitalist society, they are just a small subset of the capitalists.

It is not feudalism because the economic surplus is not extracted (primarily) through land ownership and tribute, but through the property relations of wage labour.

Yes, we can see neo-feudal structures within a late stage capitalist economy.

No, that does not preclude capitalism as the mode of production enabling those structures.

I actually typed out the other comment before reading this, but it fits more than perfectly. Read it and use your little grey cells, as Poriot would say.