In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
Good take, I don't think thats :LIB: at all (but maybe I'm just a lib)
It relates to liberalism because it focuses on individual agency to save money. Obviously not everyone can do it at once; the economy would get jammed and stop werking. Though I don't see how else you're going to build power starting in the present paradigm, besides "one little bit at a time".
One way I've applied this is in bringing up the subject of alcohol to peers in my area, many of whom drink heavily. It's a common complaint that "I can barely get by at the end of the month", but I can't help but ponder that if people spent a given amount of money on projects and organizing locally instead of on alcohol (and coke and excess weed and so on), the local bourgeoisie would be on the back foot, panicking as they were unable to deal with us.
If the personal is political, personal finance is certainly political. How does a communist spend their money/resources?
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
I guess in some way it might to put too much emphasis on people's individual capacity to save. Thriftiness is already used to blame people for their financial situation and ignore the problems of capitalism (like blaming millenials eating too much avocado toast)
If it turns into that, it's bad. If it turns into "eat gruel and live in a box or else you have no right to complain," it's bad. If it turns into scolding people about having a beer or smoking a joint now and then, it's bad.
At the same time, it's easy to spend too much money on escapism, and it's fair to criticize how serious someone is if they prioritize escapism over trying to improve the things they claim to care about.
I would happily eat gruel and live in a box for a year if it meant I could save up for enough land and inputs to build a complex to live in with 12-30 other comrades, be able to travel with a velomobile or woodgas vehicle, and not have to worry ever again about affording rent and transportation and so on.
Unironically, I think I can hold up to some of the most ruthless bad-faith criticisms of socialists. I have lived on basically $1 a day for an extended period of time. (BTW, come at me, third-worldists.)