Your second point is, I believe, part of what Max Stirner tried to get at with his notion of the unique Ego. It's clear that he meant that you should regard yourself as a unique god-like entity that imparts meaning on the world, but in later parts of the book it becomes clear that this notion of uniqueness also plays a part in how we consider other humans, especially when he critiques different forms of what he calls liberalism. In the last of these critiques he inspects the notion of humane liberalism, which liberates people qua their being human. It is because we share things in common that we have value, and thus it is this commonality that needs to be valued. Stirner absolutely rejects this logic, instead asserting that it is precisely our irreducible difference that makes us valuable.
Under Socialism, do people have inherent worth?
Yes, you're worth whatever your labor value is.
This basically highlights the difference between positive rights, ie the right to something, and negative rights, freedom from something. The liberal conception of rights is negative property rights, freedom from others restrictions to do what you want with your property, where the marxist conception of rights would be positive, freedom to posses property itself. So for freedom of speech a liberal would want freedom to publish what they want with their press free of restrictions, a marxist would want free access to the actual press and publishing to provide the positive right to speech.
Freedom in a liberal sense is freedom to do with yourself what you want as property, like rent yourself to an employer or pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Freedom in a marxist sense would be freedom to access the required property to actualize your will autonomously.
Exactly what I was going for. I was thinking along the lines of Deleuze, and the uniqueness extends from individuals to groups and communities. Survival of the fittest species is a group effort and differentiated permutations of individuals our own type teach us about ourselves as much as our environment. We see the failures of neoliberal humanism in our lives as conflict when the limiting contradictions of capitalism suppress natural difference in favor of commodified stereotyping of individuals as indistinguishable undifferentiated parts in a set with equal properties.
You could I think return to Spinoza/Hegel if I'm not misunderstanding or oversimplifying too much that each consciousness is a unique aspect of god as the universe infinitely determined by its frame of reference to all other consciousnesses and is thereby infinitely unique in its perspective which is inherently valuable no matter how trivial.
Nope…
The negative and positive rights distinction is peak undialectical thinking. How is the right to have property not a positive right? Every freedom from is simultaneously a freedom to have yourself protect against this something. Every freedom to is simultaneously a freedom from being deprived of this something.
It does not. If you look at any working socialist system (china, USSR, Israeli Kabutz, etc) you are TOLD what to do with your life based on community needs. Your own desires don't matter.