A thing that really annoys me is how the right has seized the term economic freedom, defined it as the ability of the bourgeoisie to hoard as much wealth and possible and use it in their propaganda as if that narrow special interest is at par with fundamental personal and political freedoms.
I would like the left to claim it back. Being economically free should mean that you control the product of your own labour, that you have access to the economic means of a full and dignified existence, that you have access to free healthcare and that you are not at risk of poverty.
YES
I always understand it as “you can’t be economically controlled/extorted by someone else”. Some easy examples:
-
You don’t depend of your partner.
-
You can tell your boss to go fuck themselves, either because you are backed by a strong union; or because you can just pick another well paid and comfortable job; or obviously because you are a independent proffesional/have your own small business.
-
You can’t be extorted by a landlord, either because you live in a place with strong laws against it; and/or backed by a strong tenant union; or obviously because you own your house.
-
You can freely pick a career without being constrained by money, either because education is free and you can have a part time job/receive scholarship including sustent; or because you have family that will pay for some or all that.
This examples or problem-cases have bougie “solutions” but also real solutions.
Fuck. Mega-rich people even have economic freedom from the fucking governments, which let them buy the rest of “freedoms” like being a pedo/murderer/terrorist but that’s okay because they rich.
Ah, if only mormons and all those kind of weirdos weren’t misogynistic cults. They really build strong independent communities. They aren’t cool people, but they have a strong sense of community.
It’s very easy to let libs paint us into a contrarian corner, because they are wrong about almost everything. Then they change the meanings of words like it’s 1984, and we look mega stupid.
:1984::nineteeneightyfour::1984:
I’ve had some success on this front by drawing a distinction between “paper freedom” and “actual freedom:”
- Paper freedom is what you are theoretically allowed to do. Theoretically, on paper, I’m allowed to buy the nicest house someone will sell me.
- Actual freedom is what you are realistically able to do. Realistically, I’m actually able to afford a tiny apartment in a bad part of town.
Get people thinking in terms of what freedoms they’re actually able to enjoy.
Just FYI you’re basically describing the concept of negative (paper) and positive (actual) freedom. Negative freedom is nobody is going to prevent you from buying that home, positive freedom is actually having the ability to attain it. Incidentially, the Democratic party in the United States often loves negative freedom, but eschews positive freedom because its donors already have the power to access that negative freedom.
That said, the social policies of the Democrats since the neoliberal turn have indeed brought liberation to individuals outside of the Big Bourgeoisie. From Clinton’s championing of abortion and feminist policies in the workplace to Obama’s progressive racial policies and eventual embrace of gay marriage, the Democratic party has indeed pushed forward social issues that have benefit a large part of the United States. However, these social policies are pushed within the context of the liberation of the progressive Big Bourgeoisie. This portion of the bourgeoisie is distinguished from the rest by its composition of individuals beyond the typical white male. Women, LGBT folks, and people of color are all members of this progressive Big Bourgeoisie, and therefore the conditions of their liberation are indeed the progressive social policies pursued by these Democratic lawmakers. Notice that abortion is made legal and championed, but access to those abortions is not materially expanded. Same with affirmative action racial policies, gender reassignment surgeries, and maternity leave: these policies are all made possible, but only if one has the means to access them. The Democratic party, because it represents the rich, generalizes the particular conditions of that class’s liberation as the universal conditions of liberation for all. Hence “Medicare, for all those who want it.” Anything outside the option of liberation is ignored, because the Democrats only represent those who can seize that option with their wealth.
Turns out that the freedom of power itself to do anything it wants is opposed to the freedom of people to have power, a shocking turn of events
