By Cake Boy

I was watching this YouTube debate between a socialist and a libertarian. This libertarian says: Private property solves conflicts. It’s the only tool for solving conflicts.

This isn’t true. Most of the revolts we have seen in the past were about property. The English farmers, who went back into the commons to cut wood, which was then forbidden. The first thing Marx wrote about.

The Spanish anarchists, who also wanted the commons back in a way, started their revolt against the landlords and the church, which was pretty successful (they did succeed in some of their goals and were able to mobilize millions).

The squatter riots in Europe in the 80’s were about property/housing.

The anti colonial riots, in the third world, where for a big deal about property/land/ownership

It’s pretty obvious that landlordism/property will lead to conflict. Everyone needs some land to survive, to farm, etc. When all the land is in the hands of landlords or the state, many people are dependent on them. This will lead to conflict, sooner or later, because you always have people who are more proud, more angry than average, and they are willing to rebel; these people are also among the landless

Neoliberalism and libertarianism are not a ‘smooth system’ where ‘everyone is ok with his/her place in the whole’.

Libertarians base their viewpoint on theory rather than on history or empirical data. It’s fully idealistic. This has in common with the Western woke/cultural systems of thought. It’s all based on ideals, not on realities. And it’s often the privileged people who can have this idealist kind of framework. Once people really suffer, they start to understand dimensions like power, might, and material issues. Who to trust, how to get food?

The reason neoliberalism now doesn’t collapse (yet) is that people can feed themselves. They can’t house themselves often, but they can get some food on the table (if they have a table). Meanwhile, they consume drugs, p0rn and Netflix to numb themselves. You have a zombified society that is being kept alive to make profits for the oligarchs. The oligarchs and capitalists would like to have these people as literal slaves, but this is not allowed anymore; they are allowed to keep them in debt slavery, wage slavery, rent slavery, etc.

So, whether we are pro or anti the non-Lockean proviso on private property, it leads to conflict. This is why libertarians and neoliberals want a state, because this state will temper the class conflict for them. As it has always done. The reasons 19th-century anarchists opposed the state were that it was the thing capitalists used to protect themselves. It was their tool, their weapon. Malatesta said, in a way, get rid of the state, and capitalism will then fall; then we can experiment with voluntary social systems. Back then, this was a serious option. For now, the situation is a bit different.

You could say, yes, private property is important, that’s why people were anti-capitalists. Capitalists take away your property, they took away the commons, they took away an alternative.

Is neoliberalism about owning private property? Often, the landlords own your property, or the banks do. If these banks fail, you will pay to keep them alive (although they are all about market forces, so-called).

The libertarian will call all of this ‘woke’ or ‘leftist’ talk, what I’m saying. But what I write is just common sense. This is how these systems, like neoliberalism/libertarianism, work. Whether better systems are possible is another question, but let’s not be naive about all of this. If you don’t even understand how the game is played, then what do we talk about? We then talk about your dreamworld and your ‘ideals’.

Conservatives and monarchists, etc., are, in a way, more honest. They say, yes, there is a hierarchy, and landlords just rule, and this is how society should be, and we are not equal, and everyone plays their role, we have property/landlordism. They also say: this system is indeed not very just, but the alternatives will be worse. It’s a pessimistic kind of framework. Its more consistent than the libertarian vision. I don’t agree with it, but I respect it more than silly libertarianism.

Libertarians claim a sort of English universalism, yet make it impossible by advocating arbitrary hierarchies and absolute property.

Keith said: Property arrangements are just cultural, and people should be able to choose their culture. I agree. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting to pay 80 percent of his income on rent, but I don’t want him to force this masochist lifestyle onto other people. It’s like, I don’t have a problem with BDSM, but I don’t want people to force it onto me. I don’t have problems with Islam, but I don’t want to be forced to be Muslim.

Often, the poor and the workers sort of force their stupid working ethics on other people. We like to slave for bosses/exploiters, so you should, too! We like to make profits for the bosses, so you should too. Otherwise, you’re ‘lazy’ and ‘sinful.’

Suppose that the 19th-century Spanish workers and farmers had a choice between capitalism, socialism, and mutualism. Then there wouldn’t have been a class struggle. There is class struggle because there is no alternative. You could say the class struggle emerged because capitalism was (and is) imposed on people. The Spanish people were used as workers, and there was no alternative way of living for them. When they demanded more rights, the capitalists used their state to crush them.

You could ask yourself, if people had a choice between mutualism and capitalism, why would they go for capitalism? But that’s another issue.

So, I differ from basic ancoms and Marxists in that I don’t want to ‘forbid’ capitalism. I just don’t want it pushed down my throat. This is a more subtle and powerful critique of capitalism.

Debates with libertarians are exhausting because they often lack academic or historical knowledge. They just repeat things they read on social media or things they heard on Fox News. And when they don’t understand something, they call it ‘socialism’ (A word which they also don’t understand).

In the core, I’m not against capitalism, I’m against capitalism (and statism, which is the same, historically) being forced on me.

The nice thing about me, I’m able to see things more clearly. I’m not good at fooling myself or telling myself fairytales. I see the world as it is. I cut through the nonsense.

The world as you’d have it and the world as it is
Sliding in and out of focus, does it ever, does it ever get to fit
The world as you’d have it and the world as it seems
Keep a sense of the sadness, but drive it out of your dreams
Grit your teeth and say
World as it is, world as it is

I’ve arrived at the point somewhere in between
The person that I wanted to be and the person I’ve been
Something’s eating me today, but the question mark in my guts says there’s Hell to pay
I grit my teeth and say
World as it is, world as it is

The world as you’d have it, the world that you see
The world as we’d have it is the world as it will be

• The sound (pop music band)