The 'National' part of National Socialists is a big part of the differentiation. Standard issue Socialists don't tend to have that 'Nationalism' that results in ethnic cleaning or the exploitation of the working class that the 'Nationalists' tend towards once they get into power and implement their fascism.

Fun fact: The swastika was a stylized double-s, meaning "state socialism".
  That's simply bullshit that you're making up.

Socialism is a good thing.

"Sometimes when people tell you that you're relying on semantics and you consult a dictionary to prove them wrong, you're not proving them wrong."

I'm really, but uncomfortably, looking forward to the opportunity to say this to someone someday.

Then you need something to stop the bacteria, then something to stop that....

If I could get a $0.001 for every time a person uses a toilet that I have cleaned multiplied by the number of times that I have cleaned it I wouldn't be a janitor anymore.

The irony of that is that Max Martin is considered to be the worlds greatest pop music creative (not performer), and he's Swedish; so IKEA is knocking off their homelands greatest musical artist... Unless he's the one with the contract to spooge out a couple of tracks a year for their rotation lol.

They literally said 'girl with a big meaty cock'. He is acknowledging that although they have a big meaty cock that are, in fact, a girl. That is not transphobic, that is trans acceptance.

Add in the ecological costs and the harm to the human genome to what Capitalism has and is costing the human race. Then refactor those calculations.

A person so badly affected by environmental toxins that they are sterile , or cannot afford enough housing and other needs to rationally have kids (even if they can afford a phone, laptop, and internet service to keep them numb and placated), have a different kind of poverty.

It's not always about how much stuff you can have, it's often about the stuff that you cannot have that separates those in poverty from those with wealth.

Neo-Liberal Capitalism is the economic system of both the Republicans and the Democrats. You have no actual Leftists in American politics.

Neo-Liberal Capitalism creates a welfare state because it needs poor and disenfranchised masses to crab-bucket each other and keep labour costs low.

Authoritarian Communism would literally execute the people that got caught exploiting the system through graft and subversion, and ship off to labour camp imprisonment and reeducation anyone capable of working, but refused to do so to the satisfaction of the people in their community. Unfortunately Authoritarian Communism will never truly exist because people in general are lazy and corruptible and are generally incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes.

I'll be switching to Linux exclusively. If the game won't run on Linux then I won't buy the game.
Pretty much everything else I need to use a computer for is FOSS anyway.

That's one of the jobs they will move in on, 3D printing services, anything computer controlled fabrication will have the lower 40% of tech grads lining up to to work the night shifts.

Many that would have been entry level keyboard twiddlers will now be competing for jobs in the retail, service, and other blue collar sectors. This will push down wages and disenfranchise people that were capable of and happy doing those jobs as managers snap up the better educated people willing to do anything to pay their bills.

Capitalism won.

I would actually boycott or simply pirate any author that tries to foist AI read books on me.

No. You are simply wrong in this belief.

Commerce is a prerequisite for capitalism, but it is not capitalism.

All Capitalist transactions are commerce, but not all commerce is capitalistic.

Capitalism requires that there is a Capitalist that owns the means of production and uses that ownership to extract all of the surplus value created by the workers for themselves from the transaction. Commerce is an equitable exchange of value between workers and customers.

A person is not a Capitalist unless they extract value from a transaction without providing value additive labour to the process of production.
You can literally not call yourself a 'Capitalist' in a transaction if you are doing the actual labour that produces the added value.

The majority of people that call themselves 'Capitalists' are not actually 'Capitalists', they are a 'Worker' thats lives within capitalism.

Those successful at being a subservient intermediary between the Capitalists and Workers, the 'Managers', are still workers no matter how well that are paid. Their labour to add value to the means of production is being an organizer and buffer between the Workers and the Capitalists so that the Capitalists don't have to do that labour.

Small business owners that still do the work and manage their business are workers until they stop going to work and just extract the surplus value from the business, then they become Capitalists.

A worker that saves up until they have enough savings in whatever form to retire on is still a worker unless they manage to leverage the savings into a form of ownership of a labour additive means of production that they then extract the surplus value from, then they have become a Capitalist.

You are conflating Commerce with Capitalism.

Under even the most strict and Authoritarian ideology of Authoritarian Communism an individual that has fulfilled their appropriately allocated work in support of the collective would be able to proffer their skills in manufacturing practical or artistic items or forms of service to others in exchange for currency, items of value, or reciprocal services at a rate of exchange of their own choosing. If they set that rate too high then fewer people will opt to make that commercial exchange with them. This is person participating in commerce.

When someone manages to personally possess the means of production ( such as tools, land with natural resources, or a secret to the most crucial component of the manufacture of a desirable trade good ) through the leverage or prior capital, inheritance, forceful appropriation, or bestowment from a higher authority and then uses that physical or intellectual capital as leverage to get other people to do the bulk of the labour involved in the production of the good or service while they keep as much of the renumeration from the purchaser as they can while only paying the other labourers as little as they will accept, and makes a concerted effort to leverage their capital to ensure that no other person or group is capable of offering the same product or service while equitably distributing the surplus value of the labour, then they are a person participating in Capitalism.

Commerce, which can exist without exploitation, can exist without Capitalism but Capitalism, which is dependent on exploitation to exist, cannot do so without Commerce.

and as usual the first thing that I open up is slash Dot to find the first article is good news about open source software being adopted by the United Nations.
I think I'm going to turn off the internet now and go to bed; occasionally you get to have a good day.