Michael Mitchell: Archive

Capitalism and private property are practically synonymous, just as socialism and public property are practically synonymous. You own nothing under socialism, not capitalism. The inverse is true of almost everything he says, regarding economics and political philosophy. We're not moving further towards capitalism. We're moving further towards socialism. I don't know if more of us are really more often choosing to rent over choosing to own, but if more of us are really more often choosing to rent over choosing to own as a personal economic policy, then it indicates we care less about owning property that's becoming less and less private -- i.e., owned by right, not by anyone's permission or sanction -- which means we're simply learning to accept socialism more as a way of life, resigning to our socialist fates, if it indicates anything at all, anything ideologically significant, beyond the natural consequences of the differences between digital (most of his examples) and physical goods playing out on a heavily-regulated, semi-free (at best) market. In other words, if you don't fully control what you own, then it makes sense to rent, but the idea that such a trend is the result of capitalist policies is absurd. Why do socialists always argue as if their social and economic policies aren't the ones in control? Why is capitalism still taking the blame for poor economic conditions rather than socialism receiving the credit for Heaven on fucking earth?