How about all three at once? Most people can at least connect the dots and recognize (it's basically universal knowledge for all but the willfully ignorant bootlickers) that the US is behind the origins of both al-Qaeda and ISIS, as the ones who funded, armed, and created the conditions from which they could exist.

Anyone with a decent understanding of the region will also understand that the US (and before them, the Brits) made a policy of supporting the most extreme sect (Wahhabism) in the Arabian peninsula, and has a long history of toppling secular governments and leaders in the Islamic world (even democratically elected non-socialist ones), and they used these Islamist tendencies to counteract socialist and pan-Arab movements.

To build further though, ISIS and al-Qaeda are not so different from, say, the cartels, mafias, bratvas, triads, and other organized crime (or insurgencies)- both in how they operate (besides a particular focus on terror), and in their deeply intertwined history with the US and western alphabet agencies. They provide a service to the empire- regional destabilization, and in certain areas like Syria and Iraq, also oil- and what the west supplies in exchange, apart for financing and support for these crime warlords- is to further escalate tensions and encircle their nations to destroy legitimate governments- it is a mutually beneficial relationship, as both compliment each other greatly- they feed off of each other's destabilization.

Could there be anything more American, than being called out for spouting total BS though? Bald eagles probably wept at the sight.

No worries, I get where you're coming from. Thanks for the link though (actually caught me while watching another more recent talk by professors Wolff and Hudson).

You should probably take your own advice. I'm not humoring this anymore, hopefully someone else will knock you out of it. Imagine thinking capital = the means of production. You may be communist or think you are (probably are just deeply ill informed) but this is ridiculous, you've internalized the neoliberal brainrot concepts over what is actually and tangibly presented within Marxist or even classical liberal analysis.

I think you’re confused about what capital is to begin with (in BashfulBob’s comment at least). Capital is the means of production. It’s the machinery, the tools, etc. Capitalists are called that because they own those things. Under socialism, the workers will own it (directly or via the state), but the capital still exists. You definitely cannot have industry without it.

Still low energy and woke up (dysfunction) but this cinched it, admittedly- I'm certain now that the confusion is on your end.

Capital =/= the means of production (though under capitalism as a system has control of said means of production).

Hell, the theoretical end goal of communism is to abolish capital- not just "capitalism," but capital. And certainly it is undeniable if you think of it- the means of production existed long before "capital" ever did.

And yes, money is capital. Whether that "capital/money" be in imaginary fiat currency, imaginary stonks, imaginary ugly digital apes, or gold and silver (which while having true value, all the same are used as a measure and form of speculation).

Think about it. Do you really think communists seek to "abolish" the means of production? Do you think that capitalists simply arbitrarily own the means of production through some magic mumbo jumbo rather than through the mechanism of capital? I don't know where you got the idea that capital = the means of production from, but I'm sure that it is doing far more harm than good in preventing actual understanding of the subject.

Replying rather than editing on extra to my comment but- very simplified (and with the disclaimer that I'm no scholar and I'm literally typing on my phone):

Capital =/= production or the real economy.

Capital =/= value (though it is a unit meant to approximate value and transfer it)

Imagine if the US creates a missile. Let's say the production cost and valuation is... Uh, 100$usd. Let's say that Russia produces the exact same missile, functionally and materially identical (though in reality Russian missiles are better than western crap because of capitalization, lol). It's valuation and production cost is.. 25$usd.

What is the difference, exactly? What is the 75$ difference? As a really shitty and lazy and probably somewhat flawed simplification- this is the "capital," the "capitalization" you're talking about.

This is how you get wonderful capitalistic... Capitalizations, like say, the US army spending over 36$k per garbage bin (look it up... Lmao). This is how you get the world's most expensive and certainly the least cost-efficient healthcare system on the planet (and probably in all of history). This is how regurgitated capital ("capitalizations" or "financialization," if you will) in the form of money lending, then interest paid to service the loan, and so on and so forth- metaphorical circlejerks of debt and transactions ("services") get measured as """productive economic activity."""

Anyways yeah, that's about it (heavily and shittily simplified). Once again I heavily recommend looking up prof. Michael Hudson, prof. Richard Wolff, and the Geopolitical Economy Report.

"Cosmic Forces, predating humanity" is an inherently idealistic and non-materialist statement.

Isn't that also... basically most if not all religions and spirituality? Not disagreeing (it is the "opium of the masses" after all) but such idealism/metaphysical beliefs don't necessarily prevent someone from materialistic analysis or being a comrade inherently, and there are many examples of such.

Lilith as outlined in occult pracitces is a supreme force of independence and individuality like Cartman screaming "wha eva I do what I want." basically just peak liberalism.

This is a better point, but even then independence and individuality can be expressed, acted upon, and interpreted in different ways as well (though it almost always is liberalism). More than that though, dismissing people who believe in or like the occult (as someone who doesn't believe in it) or in one deity/spirit/abstract cosmic concept or another doesn't strike me as any different from doing the same to those following other religions/spiritual beliefs.

Honestly while I don't see the lib nature of that comment, that was beautiful. It's basically bullying, but it was also beautiful. Besides, from the sound of their comment, they genuinely like being bullied anyways.