J Lou
An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
- 9 Posts
- 24 Comments
1·2 months agoYou called centrists framing the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion a strawman then accepted the framing. Democratic theory requires consent. It just also requires consent to delegate ruling out consent to alienate management/governenance rights justified by inalienable rights.
Stable employee-owned firms:
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100A country that lets people sell voting rights wouldn’t be democratic for long. Does democracy not work? Is it undesirable?
David Ellerman’s modernization of the classical laborists’ argument against capitalism is significantly more powerful than modern Marxism.
Marx’s claim that private property is the root of capitalist appropriation has been disproven in modern theories of capitalism’s property rights structure. Private property plays a role in giving bargain power to get favorable terms, but the ultimate legal basis of capitalist appropriation is the employer-employee contract
Postcapitalist systems can use market prices and, in principle, be Pareto optimal on non-institutionally described states of affair
Not a strawman. There are tons of examples of framing the capitalism issue in terms of consent vs coercion. Nozick talks about capitalist acts between consenting adults etc.
Many worker coops and majority employee-owned ESOPs exist today. It works.
Democratic theory argues that contracts based on consent to alienate are inherently invalid. Since the employment system is on the “wrong” side, the original theory invalidating these contracts is ignored and forgotten
Alienist vs inalienist refers to whether voting/control rights are transferable (alienable).
Better to say institutions based on consent to alienate vs delegate
Voting rights’ transferability with alienist systems implies inequality, but the core point is consent to alienate vs. delegate.
The employment contract is inherently an alienation contract. The workers give up and transfer the management rights to the employer and the employer manages in their own name
Alienist refers to alienation of rights.
Alienist = completely give up and transfer control rights with the recipient ruling in their own name and not in the name of the people governed
Inalienist = revocable delegation where the people retain control rights with the delegates governing in the name of the people governed
Democratic theory draws a distinction between these 2 types of contracts, and invalidates the former
The diagram should say alienation vs. delegation
You just mention the community in the post
What would be a more appropriate community?
Because most liberals don’t consistently apply their own principles. A principle that liberals are inconsistent with is the juridical principle of imputation, the norm of legal and de facto responsibility matching. They ignore this norm’s routine violation in the capitalist firm. Here, despite the workers joint de facto responsibility for production, the employer is solely legally responsible for 100% of the positive and negative results of production while workers as employees get 0%
The academic definition would be the systems of the historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production
Rhetorically, it doesn’t matter how I define the term. It matters how people use it.
The way I would define it is either the systems of historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production
I’m not a socialist, but what I advocate for is explicitly postcapitalist.
Some postcapitalist policies include
- All firms are mandated to be worker coops similar to how local governments are mandated to be democratic
- Land and natural resources are collectivized with a 100% land value tax and various sorts of emission taxes etc
- Voluntary democratic collectives that manage collectivized means of production and provide start up funds to worker coops
- UBI
62·2 months agoMarket economies aren’t exclusive to capitalism. A postcapitalist society could use markets in some places.
It is capitalism’s defenders, who are unscientific. Basic facts are unmentionable to capitalism’s supporters. The fact that only persons can be responsible and things no matter how causally efficacious can’t be responsible for anything is unmentionable in an economic context. The employer’s appropriation of 100% of the positive and negative fruits of labor is obfuscated
Econ 101 is designed to obfuscate the real issues. Even talking about specific wealth distribution ratios is falling for the misframing of the issues that Econ 101 wants to lead people into with the pie metaphor. In the capitalist firm, the employer holds 100% of the property rights for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs while workers qua employees get 0% of that. The entire division of the pie metaphor in Econ 101 is based around hiding this fact
0·2 months agoProudhon referred to himself as a socialist in the 19th century sense. Most people don’t have what Proudhon advocated in mind when they use the term, socialism, today. It is clearer to use a different word, and also helps the left avoid any unnecessary negative associations and connotations
Mutualism is not socialism as it has been defined in the 20th century @leftism
Socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There are other alternatives like economic democracy or mutualism where all companies are democratic worker coops. There are other critics of capitalism besides Marx such as the classical laborists like Proudhon and their modern intellectual descendants like David Ellerman
0·2 months agoThe tenet that legal and de facto responsibility match, when applied to property theoretic questions, is the tenet that people have an inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. The latter is the principled basis of property rights. Since employment violates the former principle, it also violates the latter. Employment contracts violate property rights’ principled basis.
Labor isn’t transferable.
The foundations of capitalism need destroying
I’ll write one. The talk argues that employment contract is invalid due to inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up even with consent. Workers’ inalienable rights are rooted in their joint de facto responsibility in the firm for using up inputs to produce outputs. By the norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, workers should get the corresponding legal responsibility, but in employment, workers as employees get 0% while employer gets 100% of results of production