No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
Ownership of productive property for accumulation of profit is the economic outcome of liberal ideals about the protection of all private property rights. I don’t understand how liberalism can be anti-capitalist in practice. Capitalist accumulation means that the political power of capital overtakes any other. This is the historical reality. This is why liberal ideals have allowed the creation corporate personhood and free speech has resulted in no functional constraint of money in politics. This is how the process always plays out. If you are anti-capitalist, that is incompatible with the liberal ideals of absolute private property rights. That is a contradiction that many anti-capitalists highlight extensively.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion.
Liberal ideals don’t inherently protect private property rights, as the difference between private and personal property was not yet established.
Liberal ideals protect the idea that you can own property as well, because before that everything (including your life) technically belonged to the king.
Liberal ideals don’t inherently protect private property rights, as the difference between private and personal property was not yet established.
Entirely incoherent. The division of personal vs private property is an anti-capitalist concept and not part of liberalism at all. This is why liberalism has to be left behind, because it is inherently supportive of capitalist accumulation and all that comes with it. Acting like liberalism can include this distinction is complete historical illiteracy.
If the right to live life as you see fit is incompatible with anti-capitalism, then you have convinced me to defend capitalism. Not because I like capitalism, but because I don’t want my life to be dedicated to following orders.
If you want to stake out incoherent political idealism as a form of wishcasting, go for it. Just don’t expect material reality to conform to your delusions. Liberalism has no claim on “the right to live life as you see fit” though. It is indeed the ideology of slavery and colonialism, and continues its exploitative conquests under the guise of capitalism.
No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
As much as one can be antifascist and a member of the Schutzstaffel, sure.
Ownership of productive property for accumulation of profit is the economic outcome of liberal ideals about the protection of all private property rights. I don’t understand how liberalism can be anti-capitalist in practice. Capitalist accumulation means that the political power of capital overtakes any other. This is the historical reality. This is why liberal ideals have allowed the creation corporate personhood and free speech has resulted in no functional constraint of money in politics. This is how the process always plays out. If you are anti-capitalist, that is incompatible with the liberal ideals of absolute private property rights. That is a contradiction that many anti-capitalists highlight extensively.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion.
Liberal ideals don’t inherently protect private property rights, as the difference between private and personal property was not yet established.
Liberal ideals protect the idea that you can own property as well, because before that everything (including your life) technically belonged to the king.
Entirely incoherent. The division of personal vs private property is an anti-capitalist concept and not part of liberalism at all. This is why liberalism has to be left behind, because it is inherently supportive of capitalist accumulation and all that comes with it. Acting like liberalism can include this distinction is complete historical illiteracy.
If the right to live life as you see fit is incompatible with anti-capitalism, then you have convinced me to defend capitalism. Not because I like capitalism, but because I don’t want my life to be dedicated to following orders.
If you want to stake out incoherent political idealism as a form of wishcasting, go for it. Just don’t expect material reality to conform to your delusions. Liberalism has no claim on “the right to live life as you see fit” though. It is indeed the ideology of slavery and colonialism, and continues its exploitative conquests under the guise of capitalism.
That is literally what liberalism is. The right to self determination, as opposed to the continued power structure of the monarchy.
Now anti-capitalism…that there seems like some wishful idealism.
Wishful Idealism is when you realize the system that is killing every human being on earth needs to be replaced
Maybe one day we’ll have a working alternative.
That’s what it advertizes, sure. But that’s not how it actually functions in practice. Just look around with open eyes please.
Looking around, I don’t see any kings.
Exactly what it says on the box, perfect. No notes.