J Lou @ jlou @mastodon.social

[\#liberal](https://mastodon.social/tags/liberal) [#anticapitalism](https:/

---

Read more

Posts

57

Comments

262

Joined

2 yr. ago

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

Some Georgists don't believe in ownership of labor because that inherently implies property rights in people. These Georgists recognize the same labor theory of property, which provides an ethical justification for common ownership of land and natural resources, also provides a critique of capitalist property relations and an argument for an inalienable right to workplace democracy.
See: https://www.ellerman.org/rethinking-common-vs-private-property/

Land value tax would solve this when combined with a UBI from the revenue it generates

You can't fully experience liberty unless everyone is free

Abolishing slavery did not prevent people from acting in a manner they wished. It prevented them from having the lack of rights of a slave. Similarly, preventing people from being wage laborers just means that that working in a firm would automatically confer voting rights over the firm and make management democratically accountable to the people that work in the firm

I am using the conventional definition of voluntariness. It is the people that are suggesting that wage labor is involuntary that are using unconventional definitions of the notion of voluntariness.

Even if this more expansive notion of voluntariness was coherent, it would not be an argument against capitalism per se because capitalism can have a UBI.

Hopefully, a teacher does not steal the positive and negative fruits of the student's labor

No involuntary impositions of power and authority is the centrist position. The anarchist position should be no impositions of power and authority even if they are voluntary. A perfect example of voluntary power and authority is wage labor. By any usable standard, wage labor is voluntary. Anarchists should object to wage labor because it involves a hierarchy of alienation. This violates workers' inalienable rights, which are rights that can't be given up even with consent

There are examples of it working with worker coops and some ESOPs that are more democratic.

Workers can jointly delegate to corporate leadership. Worker democracy doesn't mean that every decision is put to a vote. The decision-makers just have to be accountable to the workers not to some alien legal party.

The workers are de facto responsible for production. By the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching, the workers should get the whole product

See: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

Another cool Gerogism-inspired policy is common ownership self-assessed tax (COST), which can be used to collectivize the means of production while maintaining decentralized control of it.

In terms of direct action, we should just starting building postcapitalism now with venture communes of worker coops, and implement policies we want in the venture communes. This would even help with reformism because it would bring economic power to the movement, which could be turned into political power

Climate change can be addressed with common ownership of natural resources, which would include carbon tax policy.

Why does AI create a need for a planned economy?

In terms of what is possible, we could also use non-market mechanisms such as quadratic funding to allocate resources towards public goods that are available to each according to need. These mechanisms combine the egalitarianism of democracy with the flexibility that markets provide.

I was in a similar boat with respect to Marxism and anarchism.

My own intuition that something was wrong with capitalism became clearer to me when I read David Ellerman's work on the labor theory of property (Note: not value) and the theory of inalienable rights. His argument is one of the most powerful arguments in favor of workers' self-management, can answer many common criticisms and has a clear vision.

Here is a short article on PBS that introduces his argument: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies

Not all anti-capitalist ideologies are like that. Some of them have a clear vision of what to build: workplace democracy, social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of land and natural resources

The whole product is the legal rights to the produced outputs and the liabilities for the used-up inputs not value. The employer legally owns the outputs and is legally liable for the used-up inputs.
FOSS can use quadratic funding. Not arguing for complete market abolition.
The workers are de facto responsible for production. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly receive the whole product of the firm. The workers can delegate in a coop

Capitalism violates the workers' inalienable rights and actually it violates property rights' moral basis, getting the fruits of your labor. The typical firm's employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative fruits of the workers' joint labor while the workers as employees receive 0% of the property rights (not talking about value) to the whole product. The basis I mentioned is based on a basic principle of justice of legal and de facto responsibility matching

I agree with most of your points except the points about worker democracy. Being able to exit is not the same as having voice and exit, which is what worker democracy involves. The employer is not a workers' delegate. Their managers manage the firm in the employer's name. The employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm. The workers are de facto responsible for creating the product. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match

Marx thought that control rights over the firm were attached to ownership of capital rather than being logically separately acquired in the employer-employee relationship.

"It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times the functions of general and judge were attributes of landed property." -- Marx

Marx made mistakes though. For example, he assumed that the right of appropriating the whole product of a firm and control rights to direct the workers in the firm were attached to the ownership of capital. In reality, capital can be rented out just as labor can be hired. It is really the employer-employee contract that is at the core of capitalist appropriation. Ownership of capital just increases bargaining power to get favorable contract terms such as the employer contractual role

The employers' claim extend beyond a cut. They solely appropriate 100% of the whole positive and negative product of the firm while employees as employees have 0% claim on the whole product

The latter problem could be solved by banning having non-member workers at the legal level and requiring giving workers voting rights in the firm they work in.

Worker coops don't behave exactly like for-profit companies. Anti-capitalism is more than just worker democracy. For example, another aspect is common ownership of land and natural resources with fees for use. This would ensure that worker coops factor in environmental costs

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching