The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

This seems fundamentally backwards. Capitalism as a label is either refers indirectly to tangible fundamental things in a way that doesn't cut reality at the joints or to made up things, often some combination. Show me where leftist post scarcity economics exist in nature, really

Capitalism is literally just the current relations to the means of production, owning class vs proletariat, not much harder than that. Also what do you mean 'in nature'? You mean like, communistic relations existing historically?

If you mean like, where is it in fundamental an inhuman parts of nature, that's just a dumb direction

I have no reason to trust your analysis or history of anything, so everything you say is just going to sound like a really verbose "no".

What do I need you to trust here? Sounds like you're not willing to engage

It just sounds like you're rattling off canned responses and unwilling or able to switch lenses or address arguments made. I don't think Marxist analysis captures useful ontological facts. I'm never going to look at Marxist analysis and think "this needs 0 extra interpretation"

I don't even know why that's important, the point is capitalism refers to a concrete social assemblage. And that communism existing in nature is unimportant as humans exist in communistic relations historically

I'm not equipped to argue about communism, which at any rate is irrelevant if you've admitted it wouldn't alleviate fundamental problems of suffering