I wonder if this doesn’t verge on simply seeing capitalism in everything that can be seen as dysfunctional in the current and previous economic systems. Maybe just turning the term into a economic boogeyman and watering down its more specific definition.

No. Nationalism and racism are products of capitalism. Part of capitalism is the division of the global proletariat, and subjugating them to a respective national bourgeoisie. Part of capitalism is the superexploitation of ethnic minorities and division of communities along ethnic lines to maintain the power of the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a mode of production, and all that happens under it is part of its effects.

I noticed that edit. We might disagree on what counts as private ownership. Its best we not argue over the definition, but I think it might be valuable to ask if you believe in a distinction between “private” and “personal” property?

In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another it’s “theirs”, but I don’t really believe in property, at all. But worker coops in a market system imply the existence of private property even ignoring the personal/private distinction.

I don’t think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable

Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering you’re a mutualist?). But in essence this insurrection has the character of revolution in that, it is a violent rejection of the mode of production established by the state.

Leninism’s case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to “dissolve” into communism than even Social Democracy.

I don’t disagree

Power would be more evenly spread which would act as counter balances to running right back into exploitation, imperialism, etc (edit: in the sense of these things being unethical/harmful, not as technical concepts). And achieving a Mutualist market economy would “boil the frog” so to speak and minimize reactionary push back (Something Social Democracy fails at) and weaken/prevent power concentration (something state capitalism fails at).

Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You can’t avoid that.

I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.

I don’t think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.

To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.

Moral error theory contradicts itself on a fundamental level: If all moral statements are “false” this implies that truth holds moral value

How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. “This apple is red”. Is a truth apt statement. I’m also a normative nihilist, so the sentence “we ought to believe things are true” is false to me.

I don’t think it actually matters if ethics or morality have some kind of moral external proof or external truth to what humans desire in life or society.

Which is compatible with error theory. This brand of error theory is called fictionalism, effectively after accepting all moral truths are false you retain moral discourse because it is convenient. But, I think you are an ethical subjectivist/moral relativist.

The superior alternative to moral error theory is to accept that morality and ethics exists in our minds individually and collectively and is “blurry”.

Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I don’t think it’s impossible for people to believe in moral facts. “Sam believes murder is wrong.” Can be true or false. “Murder is wrong.” is always false.

Bringing up our self interest is also indicative of a sense of morality or ethics and at least in implication contradicts your belief in moral error theory. If anything it sounds more like you are a Stirnerite Egoist (maybe)

Stirnerite egoists also don’t believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I don’t think it’s good or bad.