Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)J
Posts
31
Comments
133
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I am an anti-capitalist.

    To get rid of capitalism, you don't have to abolish absentee ownership of capital. A worker coop can lease capital from third parties and remain a non-capitalist democratic worker coop. Abolishing capitalism just requires abolishing the employment contract and common ownership of land and natural resources. Without the employment contract, everyone is either individually or jointly self-employed, so every firm is a worker coop

    @196

  • 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%

    @asklemmy

  • The academic definition would be the systems of the historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production

    @leftymemes

  • 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

    @leftymemes

  • Most people think

    Socialism = state central planning

    @leftymemes

  • A worker coop is an example of joint self-employment. The workers are not employees, and the employer-employee relationship is abolished in worker coops

    @leftymemes

  • 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

    @leftymemes

  • 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

    @196

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    A profoundly stupid case about video game cheating could transform adblocking into a copyright infringement

  • "We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.” -- Abraham Lincoln

    This quote captures the differing understandings and notions of liberty between these different political groups

    @linux

  • A moneyless society that scales up to billions of people is unlikely to be possible

    Postcapitalist alternatives that use currency to facilitate trade between actors without social ties seem much more plausible@asklemmy

  • This would be joint self-employment as in a worker coop

    @asklemmy

  • I would argue that all employment contracts are terrible due to their violation of the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. De facto responsibility is de facto non-transferable, so there is no way for legal and de facto responsibility to match in an employment contract. Instead, workers should always be individually or jointly self-employed as in a worker coop

    @asklemmy

  • The employer-employee contract

    It violates the theory of inalienable rights that implied the abolition of constitutional autocracy, coverture marriage, and voluntary self-sale contracts.

    Inalienable means something that can't be transferred even with consent. In case of labor, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, so by the usual norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should get the legal responsibility i.e. the fruits of their labor

    @asklemmy

  • 100% land value tax would solve this @asklemmy

  • Capitalism is a system of property relations and labor relations. It is conceivable to not have those property relations and labor relations in a firm. However, a corporation doesn't do that as the employer solely appropriates the entire positive and negative result of production i.e. the property rights to the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs. In a worker coop, the workers jointly appropriate the fruits of their labor. Capitalist property relations aren't present @memes

  • Huh, there are worker coops and 100% ESOPs as alternatives to capitalism that can exist within capitalism @memes

  • Include, in your politics, actionable steps. The most important step is to create worker coops and supporting institutions, so you aren't giving the fruits of your labor to capitalists with what you do everyday @memes

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    "Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - All responsibility lies with workers

  • The advantage would be that there would be a clear business model for funding the work and any license enforcement, and with a clear source of revenue, we could use various public goods funding mechanisms like quadratic funding to ensure upstream projects are funded.

    I agree that the FSF wouldn't endorse it. We would have to convince developers that this approach makes sense and they need to adopt it to work towards a free and open world. @socialism

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    Rethinking free and open source and its role in the movement against capitalism - "Copyfarleft and Copyjustright"

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    Tax the land

  • LGBTQ+ @beehaw.org

    LGBT and Marginalized Voices Are Not Welcome on Threads

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    Collective Action Problems are Not a Capitalist Plot: On the Non-Triviality of Going from Individual to Collective Rationality

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    Vague "Anti-Capitalism" is Capitalist

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    We Don’t Agree on Capitalism: Demarcating the Red and Black

  • libertarianism @lemmy.world

    Against Intellectual Monopoly with David K. Levine

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    Intellectual Property Is Broken

  • Technology @beehaw.org

    Apple Is Trying to Kill the Open Internet!

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    'Inheritance for all' - Economist Thomas Piketty on recipes against inequality, the success of the right and a lavish one-off payment for everyone

  • libertarianism @lemmy.world

    What are your thoughts on Geolibertarianism? - The Power of Land: Georgism 101

  • Socialism @beehaw.org

    The case for liberal anti-capitalism in the 21st century

  • Technology @beehaw.org

    Silicon Valley’s ideology is this: Libertarianism for me. Feudalism for thee.