For example, no amount of monkeying with the economic system will make it possible to fight global warming simply by cutting off fossil fuel supplies and destroying fossil fuel company profits without huge impacts on the demand side that affect ordinary people - that'd require consuming fuel that was never produced. This effect on ordinary voters would make it horrendously unattractive to politicans even if they didn't have to care what corporations thought at all. Similarly, here in the UK there's huge public anger over sewage in our rivers and seas but no amount of nationalisation can change the fact that rebuilding the sewage system not to do that would take huge amounts of resources from other things that people care about and cause lots of unpopular disruption from the work required.
Because the things that people care about and want fixed aren't actually caused by capitalism, the most politically effective anti-capitalist ideas are populist lies that promise false solutions to those problems which cannot actually work. This also means that any leader or would-be leader with any sense isn't willing to go along with those ideas because they're creating a whip for their own back when they fail to live up to that. Any concrete, achievable anti-capitalism also has to fall so short of the populist version to be entirely unattractive.
I am not an expert on Nirvana but I would guess his suicide was more about his personal struggles than some grandiose statement about politics and capitalism.
IMO it's likely that some or all of his mental health struggles stemmed from a completely dysfunctional digestive system. In any case, blaming his suicide on capitalism seems like rewriting history to fit one's preferred narrative.
The point that I was making is that democracy is still a tool for restricting indidvidual freedoms of all types. You can have a controlling tyranny of the majority in direct democracy just like a representative ones.
A feature of libertarianism is seeking to minimize the scope of state control and authority, irrespective of government mechanism.
That is to say, the purpose of direct democracy is still to tell people what they can, cant, and must do.
In my mind the ideas of socialism and libertarianism are polar opposites.
Wikipedia on left-libertarianism isn't too bad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism), though notably missing a "Criticism" section.
Note that I don't endorse the views described in that article. I am expressing neither support nor opposition for left-libertarianism as a political philosophy. I have zero interest in debating the merits or demerits here at this time; I'm only trying to answer a question.
However, now I think that like Georgism/LVT, it is outdated due to the focus on Material means of production, and doesnt account for the increasing importance of white collar knowledge work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Philoso...
They aren't necessarily libertarian socialism per se, but there area also lots of variations of socialism that combine social liberalism with economic socialism or which are fine with greater collectivism but reject central planning.