I'd say that capitalism shares the features of wage labour being the predominant way of making a living, mostly private ownership of means of production, the pr

I'd say that capitalism shares the features of wage labour being the predominant way of making a living, mostly private ownership of means of production, the production of things with value (exchange value to be prioritised over use-value) , as in generalised commodity production, and accumulation of capital affording greater amounts of power. These seem to apply (more or less) to the world today; sure, you can point at finance capitalism, the shrinking of manual labour industries, the general ownership of more than one's labour-time, the price of oil being "incongruent" with labour theories of value, whatever. But if you don't want to call it capitalism, then you don't have to - though the experts on both sides of the coin seem to want to do so (and those I'm most sympathetic to in the Frankfurt School) - it doesn't change the reality of what's being faced. At best, I think the only reformulation required would be to put an adjective on the front of "capitalism". Or we could talk in terms of the Spectacle, the culture industry, "the economy", ideological state apparatuses etc. But no matter what, it is economy, and thus in fundamental contradiction to Communism, the end of economy. I was trying to get at using "Communism" or "Socialism" for their program, rather than "Marxism", which to me is the critique of political economy and out of which necessarily flows Communism.