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.

You're right! I fact checked myself (checked my Steam library) and it turns out that is WAS Titanfall 2 that I played.

I had exactly this experience with the game. My buddy would not stop talking about how great it was, and how awesome the multiplayer was. I literally played it all the way through in a single sitting (just the main game, no DLCs, expansions, or trying to '100%' it') and then uninstalled it because, as I told him, 'I've seen that movie and don't need to watch the fight scenes over and over again'.

The police department an a medium sized town in some region known for racism get a new police chief after the entire department is fired for being TOO corrupt. She's a black woman appointed by the governor (on purpose or by mistake? find out in season 2 or 3), new to the position of chief and transplanted from LA or New York or Detroit and brings a dozen of the black officers she's worked with over the years to kick-start the new department.

Writes itself.

5 gallon pot still does the job just fine.

A simple 5 gallon stainless steel pot still run during the evening while doing other domestic labour can easily supply the drinking and cooking water for a small family.

I bought one for making hobby booze after jokingly stating that I could 'drink for free off the fruit my kids let go to waste'. Did a run to have distilled water to drinkn with the oaked shine I made - basically the simplest whiskey - and found that I liked the distilled water ice cubes and for drinking. I've been doing a boil of a gallon or two a day for making coffee, tea, sodastream, and cooking.

Cheap, easy to do, and avoids all the pollution that would come from using store bought bottles water. I'm on a hydroelectric grid so my distillated water habit is carbon neutral and I avoid most of the stuff that does get through my municipal water supply. The down side is I also lose the fluoride.

Minecraft is descended form Dwarf Fortress, which is Descended from Hack, which is descended from Rogue.

Rogue who begat Hack, who begat Dwarf Fortress, who begat Minecraft.

'On the gripping hand'... I'm feeling the tingle of berries across the back of my teeth... Helmet must be on the fritz.
I see you're a follower of the the Wordsmith as well! First encounter in the wild!

Anti-cheat only has meaning for competitive MOBAs and the like, people playing single player games don't need to support anti-cheat. In regards to the issue with 'desktops', if all you ever do is load up Steam or Firefox then the 'desktop' really doesn't have much impact on how you use your computer. My Windows box is pretty much used exclusively to run Chome, Steam, and Epic, and the next time its Win10 installation cacks out I'm definitely making the transition to Mint or Ubuntu and just abandoning any games that are unsupported.

You only NEED Microsoft for work stuff. Nobody making art, music, or gaming absolutely has to use Windows unless the app will only runb on Windows, and there are Linux alternative or workarounds for almost every case. The longer Microsoft goes on with obsolete-ing perfectly functional hardware the more of that hardware will end up running Linux, and the more of the non-corporate--business related apps ( and games ) will just make Linux native versions as their primary compile with whatever extra steps for Windows or Mac done after the Linux code is golden.

>If the only way to gain more consumption in your country is by productive labour, how do you get people to raise capital for larger projects?

There would be no such thing as 'Capital for larger projects' because infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, and the majority of housing would be owned and operated by the people collectively via the government. If those large scale projects are mismanaged through inattention or stupidity then the managers get sent off for reeducation in a punitive reeducation centre, if someone gats caught participating in graft, skimming, or any other exploitation of the collective resources they get executed. If you or you and a couple of friends want to open a restaurant, bespoke tailor shop, furniture shop, or other small business then you would be provided the basic infrastructure by the collective. If you manage to generate more value than you consume (surplus) then your group would get to keep that surplus to use for luxuries; but you would never be allowed to leverage that surplus to create a situation in which you are using 'Capital' to generate passive wealth through the exploitation of other workers.

>Will you allow landlords? Can a single landlord take their profits from one building and buy or build new buildings?

No. Nobody needs to own more than one home, and homes should never be used as a way to generate wealth, they should be used as homes. The average citizen, once they leave their parents home, would be entitled to a tiny bachelor pad with a bar fridge, hot plate, toilet, and shower with access to communal baths, full scale kitchens, and common rooms. If they want to live in a 'private' space with more room then they can figure out a way to contribute more to the collective so that they are awarded more, or partner up with others to have a larger shared space with a common room, bathtub, full kitchen, studio space, etc..

>If I make a innovated way to guide people around a city could someone richer buy that from me? Suppose they bought it from me for 307 million dollars.

If you make an innovative way to improve the lives of the collective you would be doing it using the educational facilities and resources available in the publically accessible labs, libraries, and research facilities that every citizen is entitles to use, free education in any art, trade, or scientific discipline that you put your effort into learning. You being educated enough to be able to create innovative new things is a net benefit to the collective. If you invest your life into being able to do that then you would be rewarded for what you produce in excess of what is expected of you. You would be rewarded with some money to spend on luxuries, but nobody would ever have 307 million dollars, nobody would ever be allowed to accumulate that much personal wealth because there is no way for someone to accumulate that much personal wealth without exploiting either the system or the other people in it.

>If I invested that in say minimizing online fraud to a level acceptable by a critical mass of merchants and then sold that for 1.5 Billion would I and my fellow investors get to keep a portion of that? If I took that money and invested in many different companies like a space ship company or mass producing electric vehicles that people would buy at a high enough price for me to be profitable would I get to keep most of that wealth?

Wouldn't be a thing. There wouldn't be 'online fraud' because defrauding an individual would get you sent to a hard labour camp, defrauding the government would be a death sentence, and in a Democratic Authoritarian Communist society there would be no poverty driving people to steal and no gratuitous accumulations of wealth to steal from. There literally would not be 'Investors' at the scale that you are talking about. Infrastructure would be at the level of government, space travel would be government, mass production of the fleet of vehicles used by the populace would be owed and operated by the government because nobody needs to own a private car that sits idle 90% of the time.

>Or will you only allow a specific maximum wealth?

Yes. You can 'own' a home, but that 'ownership' is really stewardship of the home while you and your family live there. Bigger and better homes would be available to those that sacrifice their time and energy to provide exceptional service to the collective or build a persistent family of some sort that builds out the space as the family grows . Someone that spends 15 years of their life becoming a cardiothoracic surgeon would have a pretty kick-ass bachelor pad in a residential building close to where they work, if they get married and have kids then they would get a family sized unit of similar quality. The dude that spends all his time outside of doing his mandated hours of labour cleaning the streets drinking and playing video games will live in the basic residential blocks. You get out what you put in, and if you put in nothing you get sent off to the punitive labour facility.

>Will your nation not reward people who risk their wealth?

People will not have personal wealth beyond their personal possessions and the quality of living quarters that they have earned through their labour for the collective. Nobody needs multiple houses, cars, etc.. The objective is to remove the ability for people to accumulate wealth so that a tiny few are 'rich' at the expense of others living in poverty.

>Maybe only your government will innovate and take risks. Do you think a government can take risks? Do you think a government can manage capital and labour without the information gained from profits and the free market setting values on labour and goods?

The capacity for Communist style Soviets of experts to manage the material, personnel, and informational resources nowadays is waaaaay better than it was during the Stalinist and Maoist revolutions. Modern Communist theorists gladly learn from the good and bad lessons of the development of Capitalism. It is a social science that uses the scientific method to constantly refine itself.

The main thing that Communism needs to do from the very beginning is to make sure that the 'leaders' are constantly afraid of the 'people', they need to always be aware that if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar they will die. Strangle the people that want power for themselves right from the start so that the people that do get into power are people that have the best interests of the collective in mind

>Historically, humans have tried many other ways of organizing economies I'm not saying your idea can't work. It would be amazing if you found a better way than how most of the world currently works. I am saying it has a lot of problems it has to solve. I'm also saying you are unlikely to get many people with existing capital to join your new country.

All that said, I know it will never happen. Humanity is in general too selfishly self interested to be able to pull it off. Too many people would rather suffer under Capitalism on the slim chance that they might someday be a Capitalist. They will live as exploited slaves because that means that if they just get that big break they could become a master. I'm 51, both my children are so disabled that they will never have children of their own and will likely die before I do, and when I die that is the end of my family line, so I literally no longer have any real investment in the human race. I'd love to see our species crawl out of its own shit and become something greater than what we are, but I don't have any faith that we will.

>You also may have a problem of your most ambitious wanting to leave.

If a persons ambitions are to have so much more than other people that the other people suffer then I don't want them in my community anyway.

Well, I am a Communist...

I'm a Democratic Authoritarian Communist though, not the weak-kneed liberal kind.

In my Communism both the lazy fucktard that shirks work and tries to leech off the system without doing productive labour and the conniving bastard that tries to get one over on everyone so they can skim off the top without doing any productive labour both get sent to the hard labour camps until they learn better. If you open a restaurant and make it the best it town, garnering accolades and raking in fat stacks of cash for the awesome food and service you provide, then as long as all your employees that are doing the work with you are equally compensated you can all get rich off your collective labour; you're just not allowed to leverage your wealth into buying up all the other restaurants in town so that you have a monopoly and sit back with hookers and blow on the profits you take out of the places while others do the work.

Also politicians that use their influence and positions to make themselves and their cronies rich should just be hung in the public square.