Process
Status Items Output None Questions None Claims None Highlights Done See section below
Highlights
id848719174
Philosophers historically have developed two broad conceptions of freedom. Negative freedom refers to not being subject to the forcible interference of other people or institutions, a “freedom from” outside coercion. Positive freedom, on the other hand, refers to the ability to consume certain goods or perform certain actions, a “freedom to” do things.
✏️ This is useful to set the stage about what freedom even means, especially when it comes to capitalism. 🔗 View Highlight
id848719243
liberals and conservatives claim capitalism provides negative freedom, since the government can’t generally tell you what to consume or what career to pursue. Conservatives also often add that positive freedom isn’t desirable, since such freedom might entail undesirable entitlements like school lunch or public health insurance. So the usual line is that capitalism provides negative but not necessarily positive freedom.
✏️ They painted communism as the worst of both: no negative or positive freedom. Govt told you what to do, and didn’t offer the freedom of choice in actions and purchases. 🔗 View Highlight
id848719269
Socialists often argue, however, that capitalism in fact fails to provide either form of freedom. While most workers under contemporary capitalism have more career freedom, say, than they would under feudalism and or in a totalitarian state, we’re all subject to the enormous power of the tiny rich elite who are the major shareholders in today’s gigantic global firms. When your boss wants to sample your urine to make sure you’re not having too much fun on your time off, or says you have to move to Texas to keep your job, or just closes the whole plant and moves production overseas, you’re sure as hell subject to the coercive interference of capitalist managers and investors, who can put you in the position of hustling to find a new job while the bills pile up.
✏️ The truth behind the illusion: no freedom at all. 🔗 View Highlight
id848720438
Liberals, who may be sympathetic to the socialist critique of corporate power and inequality, often say that it’s going too far to expropriate the rich — meaning, socialize their wealth and property. Why not instead just levy heavy taxes on them and limit the power of their businesses with government regulations and antitrust law?
id848720450
The problem is that, with the crucial ownership of society’s productive resources still in the hands of the 1 percent, they can bide their time until they can make a move to roll back progressive taxation, regulation, and labor unions — this is what happened starting in the 1970s, of course, inaugurating the neoliberal era that has seen the wealth distribution nearly climb back to where it was in the pre–social democratic Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.
✏️ This is what happens when you leave them alone and say you’ll just regulate them. They bide their time. It goes back to the core issue: economic democracy 🔗 View Highlight