jlou

@jlou@mastodon.social

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Eat lead⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Being logical doesn't imply knowing every true sentence.

  Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox

  @science_memes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Marxism is not the only anti-capitalist critique. There are more modern non-Marxist critiques of capitalism such as the theory of inalienable rights. See: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

  @science_memes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Eat lead⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Self-referential paradoxes are at the heart of limitative results in mathematical logic on what is provable, so it seems plausible a similar self-referential statement rules out omniscience.

  Greek gods are gods in a different sense than the monotheistic conception of god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Sure, so the argument I give only applies to the latter sense.

  @science_memes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Eat lead⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient, there is actually a way to disprove the possibility with the following paradox:

  This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.

  There are also more traditional arguments like the problem of evil

  @science_memes

• Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨workreform@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨1⁩ ⁨comment⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  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

  @workreform

• Submitted ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨workreform@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨3⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flowchart for STEM⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The ideology is often implicit in how the model is explained. For example, 2 simple facts that go unmentioned.

  1. Only persons can be responsible for anything. Things, no matter how causally efficacious, can't be responsible for what is done with them
  2. The employer receives 100% of the property rights for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The workers qua employees get 0% legal claim on that. This fact is obfuscated using the pie metaphor

  @science_memes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flowchart for STEM⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I would recommend checking out David Ellerman. He shows that workers get 0% the property rights to what they produce positive and negative violating the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match @sciencememes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flowchart for STEM⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Marx ≠ anti-capitalism

  There are other modern anti-capitalist argument derived from the classical laborists such as Proudhon.

  Markets ≠ capitalism

  In postcapitalism, we can use markets where appropriate. We have practical examples of non-capitalist firms with worker coops and 100% ESOPs.

  There are theoretical mechanisms for collective ownership that can be shown to be efficient like COST.

  There are theoretical non-market democratic public goods funding mechanisms

  @sciencememes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flowchart for STEM⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Economics treats metaphors as deep truths while treating simple facts as superficial. An example of this is in presentations of MP theory where the pie metaphor is emphasized while the actual structure of property rights and liabilities is ignored and obfuscated @sciencememes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flowchart for STEM⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, in theory, that is what it should be about. In practice, many economists bias the theories they develop to make sure the conclude in favor of their own ideological biases. Often, metaphors are treated as deep truths while simple facts are treated as superficial and ignored or even obfuscated due to their ideological implications if they were plainly stated @sciencememes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gen Z job seekers should be willing to work for free, long hours, ‘willing to do anything,’ says Squarespace CMO⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  People are treated like things under capitalism. The workers are de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but capitalism grants the employer sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the basic principle of justice that legal and de facto responsibility should match. Satisfying this principle can only be done in a worker coops. Therefore, the argument concludes all firms must be mandated to be worker coops @workreform

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Are there any political or social movements that try to mandate all business be worker owned cooperatives and how can we support them?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It is known as neo-abolitionism, the movement to abolish human rentals, and economic democracy

  Here is their website: https://www.abolishhumanrentals.org

  David Ellerman developed the underlying arguments against the employer-employee relationship with inspiration from classical laborists. They focus on property rights instead of value as you do. With the property theoretic framing, employers own 100% of the positive and negative result of production while workers as employees get 0%
  @workreform

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Get in the Hilux⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Employers steal the entire fruits of your labor as well. The fruits of workers' labor consist of the liabilities for the used-up inputs combined with the property rights to the produced output. Both of these are entirely held by the employer. This assignment violates the ethical principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. You and your fellow workers are jointly de facto responsible for producing the product, but the employer has sole legal responsibility for it
  @lemmyshitpost

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Take it from a former banker: the budget is for ordinary people. The mega-rich look on and laugh⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What do you mean by work in the statement, "Capitalism can work?" @workreform

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Responsibility has many meanings. We are referring specifically to de facto responsibility, which is descriptive concept about who intentionally did an action. De facto responsibility's meaning combined with facts about humans imply its inalienability. We can imagine fictional scenarios where the facts about humans are different such that de facto responsibility is alienable.

  In reality, the whole product of the firm is a premeditated and purposeful result of the workers' actions. @workreform

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Responsibility's inalienability is a descriptive fact not a moral claim. Giving up de facto responsibility is impossible. The moral basis here is the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match. The legal system applies this principle when it holds the person that actually committed the crime legally responsible for it. When an innocent is held legally responsible, that is a miscarriage of justice.

  The fact that the workers are oppressed is what the argument is establishing

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  In a sense, all ethics are constructs of our minds. If this were grounds to reject human rights (it isn't), it would be a reason against any reason to do anything (i.e. abolish capitalism) including egoism. The transcendent truth about ethics is unknowable. The best we can do is build moral theories on appealing moral principles. Inalienability is a theory not merely a catalogue of personal views. Hegel's inalienability critique of slavery shows this with nonsense added to not attack wage labor

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  The capitalist account is that wage labor is voluntary by any legally usable standard. Even if elevated standards of voluntariness could be made coherent and legally usable, a UBI would resolve such critiques; therefore, they are not per se critiques of capitalism.

  What specific layer of obfuscation are you referring to? What specific criticism of natural rights do you have in mind? I have read many criticisms of natural rights, but none of them seem to apply Ellerman's particular formulation

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  There is a moral principle that legal responsibility should be assigned to the de facto responsible party. Ellerman shows that the employer-employee contract under capitalism is inherently based on violating this fundamental moral principle. Natural rights are just rights that follow from certain basic principles of justice/moral principles.

  The capitalist account is that workers consent to wage labor. Ellerman's argument is necessary to show that capitalism even if it was voluntary is unjust

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Ellerman's approach actually clarifies how the system of property and contract works under capitalism and avoids some basic mistakes that are pervasive in Marxism and neoclassical economics. Furthermore, his argument is significantly stronger and more decisive than established leftist criticisms. It establishes that wage labor violates workers' rights even if it is voluntary.

  What specific point in the article did you disagree with?

• Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨workreform@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨16⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Welcome To Aftermath - Worker-owned video game journalism⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Worker-owned companies is certainly rooted in anti-capitalist thought, but they aren't inherently socialist in the 20th century sense because they are compatible with private property
  @games

• Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨videos@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨0⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I am new to #lemmy. Is this the correct way to post to a lemmy community from a #Mastodon server?

  @workreform

• Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨workreform@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨3⁩ ⁨comments⁩