You had me till your last sentence which I think is reformist, but since you stated your position so well im sure we could (hypothetically) work together in coalition.
I think its clear that there is a great deal of consumerism that exists in excess of peoples needs, but without a means to replace it with anything, since the consumerism is an expression of people's social alienation, then there's no material incentive for people to make these changes. It seems like the thrust of your ideas would work well along side certain anarchist and social libertarian ideas of dual power, which I think is also worth of criticisms but also is a step closer theoretically to a correct formula for change.
Confusion about the government's role in class oppression, unawareness of what money is and how it operates, these are big questions that took me a long time to find sufficient and satisfying answers for them. If your like to share your zines or writings I'd at least give them a look! I read and contribute political and economic articles to some zines too, and frankly I'm just a fan of the form. I'm a bit older and diy zines were the first polisci I ever encountered, and now I'm a smelly commie, on watchlists and everything
I'm all for having strong personal ideals, and a healthy respect for democracy and justice, but you subscribe to many illusions about our system that make your beliefs pretty idealist. Not that people who call what Luigi did "the will of the people" don't, but there is a dearth of false consciousness to go around.
We don't have democracy, justice, civility for all, we have it for a dwindling few. Luigi's vigilantism is a sign of the utter failure of all the systems you note "should have" taken care of these things.
This is the problem with morality vs ethics. Morality doesn't require one to understand their own beliefs, or worry about where they came from; only to follow them. What we call democracy is a form of class domination. We deserve more.
You wont weaken the government by not paying biills. We don't want a weaker state we want to smash the state and create a new one for and by workers not billionaires. How does weakening the government weaken their power? Right now the government is weaker than its been in 70 years and the billionaires are more powerful than ever.
I agree that a united, militant workers movement will weaken various structures that the rich use to reinforce their rule, including parts of the government but I think you need to develop your view of the state under capitalism because you still subscribe yo many false illusions. Its like people saying Luigi is going to tip the balance in class relations for the workers. Its just a kind of reformism or false consciousness that hopes that there is a step before what is necessary that would be good enough.
Organized mass payment strikes, I think strategically, like in healthcare, a mass movement could shake some things up, but likely it would just result in increased violence against the movement. Individuals not paying bills will literally not do shit. Individual action is basically worthless. In order for it to reach a critical tipping point, where a quantity of individual action transforms into change in political or economic quality, will take a lot of organization. And more power to you! Organize it and I'll likely join. I'll throw you a bone, but you have to provide the meat. Personally it's not what I think is going to lead to greater worker consciousness and emancipation, but I'm just some guy. Organize it and prove me wrong.
I'm all for an organized, mass bill payment "strike" and some businesses would be effected, though not really any very large companies, who would benefit the most from having their competitors go out of business (and forced to sell or merge their assets for a fraction of their value) than we would by saving $100-200 per month, which we would spend, corporations would raise prices, and all of that money just flows back to the banks anyway.
Now tenant organizing and rent strikes, that's where you can actually fuck shit up and make demands many times. But like your gas company doesn't give I shit, you just won't have heat, fuck you.
It would be nice if this was true but it still based on the illusion of a free market
The last time my wife and I went through Amish country, I saw a sign stapled high on a telephone pole, written with marker on pink poster board that said like "Yoder's website design" and the number to call to presumably ask Yoder to make you a website.
People may not be familiar with Amish country, but there are tons of like construction companies, cabinet shops, etc., because people out here really like Amish made carpentry, so there's lots of little businesses set up. Yoder is an Amish/Mennonite name, so I can imagine some young Mennonite guy selling like basic HTML/ CSS or like WordPress sites to all these little businesses that probably want a website but don't use the internet themselves.
Or who knows maybe their web design is as good as their carpentry?
The state is the historical apparatus that manages the inherent contradictions between classes. It administrates capitalism for and by the ruling class. Capitalism is maintained by the state, the state sustains capital and private property, through violence.
Capitalism is a form of class domination, various forms of slavery stitched together to exploit the masses for the benefit of the few. Only a democratically organized working class can "fix" capitalism, by eradicating it. The government is the apparatus that temporarily fixes the contradictions of capitalism, but the relations defined by this irrational, inefficient social system (unless you consider monopolies efficient) are what state governments under capitalist rule try and eventually fail to "mitigate". The contradictions compile until you have an economic crash, which is actually good for monopolistic capitalists who can purchase the productive capital of their competitors at a fraction of the cost, leading to systematic downsizing; while the rest of the population suffers recession, inflation, and mass indignity.
The poor exist because there are rich. The capitalists are in control, as a class, and governments merely mitigate the worst tendencies. This is why reformism isn't a long term strategy. Capitalism can't be reformed, it can only be replaced.
And if we, the working class will be able to replace it with a system of greater freedom, equality and democracy, then the aims of socialism will have been reached without the "authoritarian" tendencies becoming reified in any significant way.
You can have your doubts about this, but your libertarian perspective is one of false appearances. If you want to understand the state and the economy, it must be considered as a series of relations brought about by human activity, using the tools laid before us by history and nature. If you think of the world like this, considering the subjective nature of politics and the economy, such as incentives, motives, etc., then your investigation will uncover the true relations that comprise this mass wage slavery to the billionaire class, known as capital.
In 1776, people didn't know what fascism was. Hell there wasnt even consensus on what capitalism was, Wealth of Nations was published that same year. They had never seen a capitalist system degenerate, as would happen in France under Louis Napoleon in the 1850s.
They knew what feudalism was, which was bad and a form of authoritarian autocracy, but this isn't Fascism. They were afraid that the kings and queens would get restored, as revolutionaries (and capitalism was revolutionary and progressive at that time) they were safeguarding against a counter revolution which would come from monarchists.
There is no way they could conceive of a movement to overthrow capitalism, which they barely understood although being the revolutionary capitalist class, that would come from a greater demand of social reforms, one where the class they were a part of would rule society rather than just administer it as they had for centuries, one where a class that they didn't even know about, the proletarian working class, would supplant them and bring greater prosperity and equality. This movement developed fully in Russia and Europe after the first world war when the last of the weakened feudal aristocracy destroyed their own continent to fight over scraps of colonial internationalism. A revolution in Russia inspired the global working class, especially where they were highly organized and industrialized such as Italy and Germany, and terrified the ruling capitalist classes of those countries.
In the shadow of the emerging workers movement grew the dialectical opposite and evil twin of German and Italian communism: Fascism. Fascists gleefully fight and kill communists, and desire power above all else, exploiting contradictions in liberal democracy (that's "liberal" meaning supports private property, not cool liberals that like freedom and justice) to confuse the masses and gain power. The ruling classes, weakened by decades of militant worker struggles, assented to the will of the fascists and in a last ditch effort to preserve their dwindling control, handed power over to them. The rest is history.
The founders couldn't conceive of the conditions you describe as they either didn't exist or wouldnt be developed enough to study for 50-70 years. Not all forms of authoritarianism are the same. They thought they were doing away with their version of it. Besides, the "founding fathers" gags violently would have fucking loved Trump
What is a tit loan? A loan to buy breast implants, or a way to convert your tits into capital that can be borrowed against? Or is it both, so that you can get like a second a second mortgage on your tits once you build some equity?
You had me till your last sentence which I think is reformist, but since you stated your position so well im sure we could (hypothetically) work together in coalition.
I think its clear that there is a great deal of consumerism that exists in excess of peoples needs, but without a means to replace it with anything, since the consumerism is an expression of people's social alienation, then there's no material incentive for people to make these changes. It seems like the thrust of your ideas would work well along side certain anarchist and social libertarian ideas of dual power, which I think is also worth of criticisms but also is a step closer theoretically to a correct formula for change.
Confusion about the government's role in class oppression, unawareness of what money is and how it operates, these are big questions that took me a long time to find sufficient and satisfying answers for them. If your like to share your zines or writings I'd at least give them a look! I read and contribute political and economic articles to some zines too, and frankly I'm just a fan of the form. I'm a bit older and diy zines were the first polisci I ever encountered, and now I'm a smelly commie, on watchlists and everything