jlou
@jlou@mastodon.social
#liberal #anticapitalism #EconomicDemocrat
An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
- Comment on Take it from a former banker: the budget is for ordinary people. The mega-rich look on and laugh 3 months ago:
What do you mean by work in the statement, "Capitalism can work?" @workreform
- Comment on 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months ago to workreform@lemmy.world | 16 comments
- Comment on Welcome To Aftermath - Worker-owned video game journalism 7 months 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 11 months ago to videos@lemmy.world | 0 comments
- Comment on 11 months ago:
- Submitted 11 months ago to workreform@lemmy.world | 3 comments