I pretty much do live like you recommend, and the ability to do so is one of my favourite things about capitalism and classical liberalism (I am very pro!).
That actually reminds me of a book by Harry Browne that I read decades ago and liked a lot. I'm not sure what I would think now but I think I would still like it. The title: "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World."
In 1999, I was staying at a friend's place and woke up before the family did. So I perused his library. I found that book. I started reading after having read it many years earlier. On page after page, I said to myself, "I thought I was the one who came up with that." That's how throughly I had integrated Browne's approach into my life.
Another good option would be to emulate Bryan and become a tenured academic. A guaranteed upper-middleclass income for life and you never have to touch the private sector.
Everything socialists want to do they can do under capitalism. Want to start a worker's cooperative, provide free schooling, healthcare, food, you name it - go ahead, you're free to do whatever you want.
Meanwhile under socialism if I want to start a business or keep what I earn - a gulag if I'm lucky.
Even the “hard” things you described were capitalist luxuries. Five-year-old phone? That’s a sci-fi movie prop a couple decades ago. Uber or bus?
I don’t mean that I don’t agree with the whole post. Just even what those people consider poverty. Only those spoiled by capitalism can dare attempt socialism.
As someone who is a Democratic Socialist, who lives very close to your prescribed norm (worked as a public attorney for over a decade and saved relentlessly, left the workforce indefinitely, moved to a low income place, bought a very cheap house (under 50k), invited an older relative to live for very low cost sharing in a spare, share a low cost utilitarian vehicle, etc…), I nonetheless find this such an obviously fallacious concept.
A world in which socialists have less money and time and power, and cosplay a world that actually is moving farther away from their ideals or norms, is just stereotyping the ideals and world we want to build. All while those who advocate for a world we find repugnant gain more power and influence. Which I am sure is fine for you.
What you are proposing is some kind of socialist “Benedict Option” (which is perhaps apropos for Bruenig and her heterodox Catholic socialist leanings). But there is a reason that the Drehers and Deneens quickly abandoned that worldview for one in which they had power. And it’s because they actually do want to shape and live in a world they idealize. While I find their authoritarian culture models terrifying, and their natural law stuff to be nonsense on stilts (as it always was), it’s still obvious WHY they abandoned it.
The point is not to mandate some kind of austere minimalistic existence, but to ensure that as many people as possible have equal freedom in a functional sense. Freedom without resources is entirely empty, and inequality is just an asymmetry of freedom and power and coercion. One that is far more pernicious and arbitrary than a democratically distributed one.
Again, freedom in a liberal socialist context basically means ensuring the resources necessary to live one’s life on one’s own terms, even while internalizing a moral rubric of shared obligations, rather than protecting the wildly asymmetric distribution of wealth and time and freedom that we actually have.
What you seem to desire for them/her/us is very much not just “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, but something far smaller and less hopeful. I don’t think it’s an accident and it doesn’t seem to be in particularly good faith.
Ms. Bruenig says that people in a Capitalist society develop rather evil habits. She then claims that under a Socialist system, these same people would become virtuous. I think this is rather optimist. For generations, various religions, social movements and governments have striven to make people better. I don't see that they have succeeded. If you think that people under Capitalism, people become evil, i expect that under Socialism people will also become evil, just in a different way. my comment isn't quite as coherent as I planned, sorry.
Most socialists are happy to strive at upending our declining crony capitalism and mixed economy, forcing us to live under their nightmares. For those that want to experience what is likely the most successfully functioning example of socialism, they should seek membership in a Hutterite colony, a free market solution I have advocated for welfare queens and their children to break the welfare dependency cycle. Their children would be educated while their parent works all day, teaching them that working productively leads to eating like kings. The Hutterites can pull it off due to a strong religious glue that holds it all together. Small scale independent colonies help as well. They have few modern conveniences and distractions but the latest and best in agricultural equipment.
If you do own a home, share any spare rooms with homeless people to show solidarity...same with food, medical assistance....all anyone to use your car...or any other items you "own"
Shane Claiborne actually does this and advocates for this. I met his community and checked it out once. His ideas are interesting even if they're wack.
According to searches, there are about 75K homeless in LA county (at least according to LA Homeless Services Authority). According to an AI search, there are roughly 150K to 300k spare bedrooms in LA county in wealth homes. Since most of the wealthy in LA tend to be left-leaning, they can on their own initiative can solve the housing problem.
Nice. Of course, none of these self-identified socialists has any intention of giving up their iPads any time soon. Don't you know that if it's done right, we can all have everything and not work (besides on our "art")?
Live in a commune, delay children, don’t drink? Sounds more like the Bay Area than Lubbock to me
Funny, I've lived most of your frugality advice and the invested all of my savings into...capital!
I pretty much do live like you recommend, and the ability to do so is one of my favourite things about capitalism and classical liberalism (I am very pro!).
Will we get the “How to find Anarcho-Capitalism in a Statist World” handbook next? 👀
That actually reminds me of a book by Harry Browne that I read decades ago and liked a lot. I'm not sure what I would think now but I think I would still like it. The title: "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World."
In 1999, I was staying at a friend's place and woke up before the family did. So I perused his library. I found that book. I started reading after having read it many years earlier. On page after page, I said to myself, "I thought I was the one who came up with that." That's how throughly I had integrated Browne's approach into my life.
Another good option would be to emulate Bryan and become a tenured academic. A guaranteed upper-middleclass income for life and you never have to touch the private sector.
What a superb takedown.
I wrote a response here. Please enjoy.
https://thersitism.substack.com/p/i-tried-to-buy-socialism-in-lubbock
Everything socialists want to do they can do under capitalism. Want to start a worker's cooperative, provide free schooling, healthcare, food, you name it - go ahead, you're free to do whatever you want.
Meanwhile under socialism if I want to start a business or keep what I earn - a gulag if I'm lucky.
You threw me at “can-do socialist”, but I soldiered.
Even the “hard” things you described were capitalist luxuries. Five-year-old phone? That’s a sci-fi movie prop a couple decades ago. Uber or bus?
I don’t mean that I don’t agree with the whole post. Just even what those people consider poverty. Only those spoiled by capitalism can dare attempt socialism.
As someone who is a Democratic Socialist, who lives very close to your prescribed norm (worked as a public attorney for over a decade and saved relentlessly, left the workforce indefinitely, moved to a low income place, bought a very cheap house (under 50k), invited an older relative to live for very low cost sharing in a spare, share a low cost utilitarian vehicle, etc…), I nonetheless find this such an obviously fallacious concept.
A world in which socialists have less money and time and power, and cosplay a world that actually is moving farther away from their ideals or norms, is just stereotyping the ideals and world we want to build. All while those who advocate for a world we find repugnant gain more power and influence. Which I am sure is fine for you.
What you are proposing is some kind of socialist “Benedict Option” (which is perhaps apropos for Bruenig and her heterodox Catholic socialist leanings). But there is a reason that the Drehers and Deneens quickly abandoned that worldview for one in which they had power. And it’s because they actually do want to shape and live in a world they idealize. While I find their authoritarian culture models terrifying, and their natural law stuff to be nonsense on stilts (as it always was), it’s still obvious WHY they abandoned it.
The point is not to mandate some kind of austere minimalistic existence, but to ensure that as many people as possible have equal freedom in a functional sense. Freedom without resources is entirely empty, and inequality is just an asymmetry of freedom and power and coercion. One that is far more pernicious and arbitrary than a democratically distributed one.
Again, freedom in a liberal socialist context basically means ensuring the resources necessary to live one’s life on one’s own terms, even while internalizing a moral rubric of shared obligations, rather than protecting the wildly asymmetric distribution of wealth and time and freedom that we actually have.
What you seem to desire for them/her/us is very much not just “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, but something far smaller and less hopeful. I don’t think it’s an accident and it doesn’t seem to be in particularly good faith.
Ms. Bruenig says that people in a Capitalist society develop rather evil habits. She then claims that under a Socialist system, these same people would become virtuous. I think this is rather optimist. For generations, various religions, social movements and governments have striven to make people better. I don't see that they have succeeded. If you think that people under Capitalism, people become evil, i expect that under Socialism people will also become evil, just in a different way. my comment isn't quite as coherent as I planned, sorry.
Most socialists are happy to strive at upending our declining crony capitalism and mixed economy, forcing us to live under their nightmares. For those that want to experience what is likely the most successfully functioning example of socialism, they should seek membership in a Hutterite colony, a free market solution I have advocated for welfare queens and their children to break the welfare dependency cycle. Their children would be educated while their parent works all day, teaching them that working productively leads to eating like kings. The Hutterites can pull it off due to a strong religious glue that holds it all together. Small scale independent colonies help as well. They have few modern conveniences and distractions but the latest and best in agricultural equipment.
If you do own a home, share any spare rooms with homeless people to show solidarity...same with food, medical assistance....all anyone to use your car...or any other items you "own"
Shane Claiborne actually does this and advocates for this. I met his community and checked it out once. His ideas are interesting even if they're wack.
According to searches, there are about 75K homeless in LA county (at least according to LA Homeless Services Authority). According to an AI search, there are roughly 150K to 300k spare bedrooms in LA county in wealth homes. Since most of the wealthy in LA tend to be left-leaning, they can on their own initiative can solve the housing problem.
I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Yes, I was elaborating on the point.
Nice. Of course, none of these self-identified socialists has any intention of giving up their iPads any time soon. Don't you know that if it's done right, we can all have everything and not work (besides on our "art")?
This essay reminds us again that TANSTAAFL, no matter how pure we may think our motives are.