The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

I don’t know what that means.

I was trying to figure out if you were a societal collectivist in terms of what you think would be in our best interest as individuals. A truly collectivist society would not be permissive of the freedom of association. If someone can choose to not participate or even compete, that may risk undermining the collective's interests. There is a sliding scale here though.

I have no problem with possessions, I have a problem with creating a metaphysical fantasy of the idea of the “ownership” of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical “right” of ownership of an object or land. I reject that this really exists

Yeah I more or less agree. I don't really believe in rights at all. For me property is more of an aspect of social constructs and that property in some forms holds value in a society I'd like to live in. Just not private property.

Why bloodless? When Capitalism is bathed in blood daily?

Consequences. If you minimize the bloodshed, you are more likely to have a stable and functional society afterward to maintain a new system. And also obviously, just minimizing deaths is always preferable to me regardless of cause. Further, the question is not of blame but if you find yourself in the position to prevent death that doesn't mean you can prevent other deaths. Even after an insurrection that established some kind of path to ending capitalism, killing more directly if anything will cause even more indirect systemic deaths.

Also, I said "bloodless as possible". I know that statistically speaking some likely would end up dead to save many others in such a situation. If letting someone live means capitalism wins, then by all means in this scenario, kill them, but most of the time it wouldn't be necessary.