If the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
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 the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
You’re missing the part of the definition of liberalism that upholds the right to private property, which is the core foundation of capitalism.
There are other ideologies that uphold the right to control your own life that don’t also uphold private property, such as socialism.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Uh huh.
Don’t forget to pay rent this month.
Rent? What’s that? Some poor people thing?
Very Free. Much Liberty!
Propaganda has burrowed so deep into your thinking. Capital accumulation is inherently oppressive.
I didn’t know that freedom to live your life as you see fit was the accumulation of capital.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
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.
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.