jlou

Here is a short introduction to the core argument against capitalism based on liberal principles: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

@socialism

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

Private property rests on the principle of people getting the fruits of their labor. In other words, private property appropriation has a labor-basis that capitalism denies. Capitalism violates the very principle behind private property by giving workers 0% joint claim on the positive and negative fruits of their labor

"Property is theft!" -- Proudhon

The employment contract is what really enables capitalist appropriation.

I agree with your critique of capitalist liberal democracy

@socialism

Private property isn't as supportive of capitalism as it initially seems. Classical laborists (e.g. Proudhon) and their modern intellectual descendants (e.g. David Ellerman) argue that the positive and negative results of production are the private property of the workers in the firm. This argument immediately implies a worker coop structure mandate on all firms and rules out capitalism. Capitalism is so indefensible that even private property requires the abolition of capitalism

@socialism

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

Classical laborists and their intellectual descendants' case against capitalism boils down to the idea that the positive and negative results of production are the private property of the workers in the firm. When understood properly, the unique arguments they make are that we should abolish capitalism in the name of private property. The left should lean into this framing. It's hard to call private property supporters Marxists.

Socialism doesn't clearly evoke those examples to people

@leftism

Proudhon 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

@leftism

Mutualism is not socialism as it has been defined in the 20th century @leftism