absolutely hate that the rightists took "freedom" and leftists were like "ok, that's ok, we can just advocate for, like, equality" which is pretty boring imo

marx never talked about "equality", he talked about liberation
same with lenin
same with anarchists

like yeah "equality" as a concept is ok, but we kinda just let the right stick us with that label.
marxists advocate for complete autonomy of workers from coercive domination by others.
that is the end goal of the class struggle; the free development of each.

which society is more free:

1. a society where millions of people are forced to smile and say "welcome to [establishment] how can i help you?" for 8 hours a day, or else they will surely starve

2. a society where you have a place to live and food to eat, no matter what you do

which is more free:

1. overthrow national governments so that foreign investors can plunder the natural wealth of the land and accumulate massive amounts of capital

2. the people of a region have democratic control over the wealth produced by their land, labor, and resources

1. you have an opaque private insurance plan that is impossible to decipher, but you're only allowed to go to "in network" places, or else you will go bankrupt

2. every hospital, doctor, medication, and treatment is just taken care of, and you can get whichever you want

in every one of these cases, it's blindingly obvious that socialism is a road to achieving more freedom.
the primary philosophical difference between libertarians and socialists is that we've realized that "private property rights" are interfering with all the other rights.

does this mean that I don't think people should be allowed to own houses, or bicycles, or xboxes?
no
i just don't think that one person should be allowed to use their wealth to make more wealth, by owning a factory and subordinating labor for production.

i just think that you should have to work in order to acquire more material possessions.
yes, there should be an expansive basic safety net, but any wealth on top of that should actually be a product of your own labor, not some shit you won in the stonk lotto.

because, i promise you, there is a LOT more of your wealth being siphoned off by the ruling class than there is going to any kind of basic social safety net, and you don't benefit at all from the former case.
with the latter case, we are making sure that you don't die.

i think that anyone whose labor is being used in a process should have input on what happens with the product of their labor.
i also think that local communities should have a say in what's happening in that establishment too, because externalities directly affect them.

which is more freedom:
1. company buys a plot of land, builds a tire plant, and pollutes your river.
the people of the community have to struggle against the interests of the owners, and they finally get some bureaucratic "red tape" put over the issue, the river is now semi-safe.

in the meantime, nobody can use that river without getting sick (what happened to all our freedom to go swimming?) & stopping pollution is not always a sure-fire way to fix the problem.
there's motivation for them to find more sneaky ways to pollute—endless game of cat and mouse.

2. community, from the start, has democratic control over the factory (alongside workers, whose families also live in the community), can prevent them from polluting the river in the first place.
no "red tape" required, because nobody except owners would be ok with a dirty river.

if you're against regulations and "red tape" preventing "innovation", then communities (and workers who live in those communities) having control of the establishment is a pretty sure-fire way to ensure that their interests are never at odds.

that signals a nearly complete removal of things that are "barriers to innovation", because establishments aren't gonna do some dumb shit like dumping in the river if the community has control.

i also think that the people in a nation, or a region, or whatever geographical unit, should have some ability to consciously plan their economic lives.
they should have a direct say in whether to increase or decrease production, to increase or decrease social welfare, etc.

as it stands right now, do you have any freedom to choose whether you want to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into raytheon and northrop-grumann?
do you have any freedom to choose whether the USA invades iran (another $5 trillion war that won't go anywhere)

do you have any freedom to choose whether or not amazon should pay taxes?
or whether YOU should pay income tax?
we already have a "wealth tax", it's called "property tax" and it only heavily affects middle class families.
why not abolish that one and tax capital instead?

this is entirely about whether people like you and me have any shred of control over the systems that govern our lives.
if we don't have any control besides a meaningless vote once every 2/4 years, then how can we have meaningful freedom?