sticky@neddie But that isn't the thinking behind "you'll own nothing", rather it's the next phase of hyperconsumerism, one in which everyone is still expected to spend, to go into debt, to consume endlessly, except without even the promise that in the end it will all be your own "stuff". It's a future where everyone rents everything from a tiny group of owner-capital elites with all the power imbalance and erosion of rights that implies.
To put it in some context - would you be happy *only* being able to rent out a bicycle? Like, it would be theoretically possible to own one, if you could afford to spend tens of thousands on one of the handful of luxury brands that cater to the owner-elite, but 99% of people would only have the option to take an off-the-peg model at a per-day or per-month rate, because in this proposed future essentially every product would have just a couple of brands(and I say brands because most of them regardless of sector would end up owned by a tiny handful of transnational megacorps) and rental would be their sole business model.
This is what I mean about being careful of appearances - when people who're "in the know" about environmentalism and urbanism etc talk about moving away from car ownership, car clubs, just renting a car when you need one etc there are loads of unspoken assumptions underlying that about investing in public transport, people riding bikes & e-bikes, liveable cities, etc, that many people who're *not* immersed in the subject won't know about, and if they've previously heard similar comments from the "own nothing" neolibs then unless we're careful that's who we'll end up being lumped in with in their minds.
posts
