Can you give me a quick definition according to Marxists of personal and private property?
It is possible, but not worth it.
That is capitalist realism for you.
That is realism. Which is usually quite valuable if you want to change a system.
You seem hell bent on apply the label capitalist as an epithet on just about everyone you respond to. Can you quickly tell us what you think it will accomplish?
Fun with labels. Generalization is for the lazy.
My deep, multi week long, post history? You must really know me.
You have no idea what systems I support, yet you assume I support capitalism because I didn't agree with you, which says a lot. The only evidence of my beliefs I have provided is that I do not support your approach. Further, I do not believe your rhetoric is a genuine attempt to make the world any better for anyone.
You used the wrong quote from yourself. What you quoted from me was a reaction to this gem of a statement:
If you support capitalism and you’re not a capitalist you’re just a bootlicker.
which is black and white, and typical of us-good versus them-bad argument fallacies. If you live and participate in a capitalist system, as the vast majority of humanity does, you are, to some degree, supporting it.
Based on the comments in this thread I take your position to be it's a matter of degree of support. Owning a truck isn't capital, it's apparently got to be a lot to make someone a capitalist. That is not leftist or anti-capitalist, but simply "eat the rich". Most people exist in classes that participate in ways that keep the lower earners below. I do not believe most humans think this great system for all but feel helpless, and participate as a way to simply exist.
Surely spreading insulting, erudite rhetoric in online is not the solution.
Subjectivity abound.
Why not call them capitalists? Seems more direct and less dog-whistle-ish.
In whatever you call the systems of nearly every corner of the modern world. Because they are all hybrids and usually contain some degree of these elements. Discussion pure versions of any economic system is an academic exercise and only tangentially related to reality.
Many non-liberals support capitalism. Ipso facto your definition is useless and obviously has meaning to you beyond the quip. Words are fun!
Are they unique to capitalism?
I provided a less vauge defintion than you. How am I to understand a defintion that is no more than a quip?
It is cowardly behaviour to refuse to look something up that "takes 5 seconds" because you wanted me too?
Nowhere was capitalism equated to realism in my posts. That does make any sense. Why would you write that?
You claim I do not understand precise language, and therefore do not know the first thing about socialism. That also makes no sense.
These are non-sequitors.