Seems I'm a commie. maybe. Or I'm not.
Except, I am clearly not. I'm also not a capitalist, and I am not an "ancap" -- all you ancaps out there, here's why you are wrong:
Capitalism as it has been practiced thus far requires privileges. That is to say, one group must be placed above others in order for today's capitalism to exist. The United States is not a capitalist nation. It's corrupt to the very core due to the corruption of its money and its politicians. China is not a communist nation, either. It's a fragmented dynastic dictatorship (of sorts-- not exactly but I don't have much time to be nuanced here so there are the bare facts) led by the same kinds of people in charge in the USA. Speaking of the USA, it's been shown to have less social mobility than, well, anywhere. That is because it is corrupt, people!
Given how easily capitalism becomes.... something else.... that is-- whatever rules both the United States and China alike-- and how easily communism becomes that, as well, I want to suggest something new:
I am a Peer. Peers can be super peers or peers, but nothing else. Peers talk to super-peers and peers alike, and super-peers become peers, and peers become super-peers according to clearly defined specifications. Peers (including super-peers) help one another. Peers belong to multiple super-peer sets simultaneously and help their super-peer communities achieve their goals. Peers validate collectively to guard against hierarchy. Peers defend the network, and don't talk to those who poison it.
This is a gradient, arranged by how many peers can be spoken to by a super peer and how long that takes to do, which is to say that no peer is ever a super-peer exactly. Instead, peers have a normal score of 1, a minimum score of 0.01 and a maximum score of 2 relative to others in their swarm(s). This is, of course, to prevent the formation of "uber peers". Peers participate in multiple swarms and make choices on their own.
Abstraction of identity is dangerous. not real sure what the right alternatives to that might be.
To be safe, I am stating that anything I said in the past 6-12 months, unless it was said verbally, is suspect. This would include:
I mean this universally, for everything I've said, to anyone, except maybe verbally, but maybe not.
This experience has led me to realize just how ludicrous the idea of speech/thought-crimes is. Of course, I always knew this, strongly.
Tellin everyone here: All I know is that I don't know what "I"'ve said.
I am not going to waste time on the rest.