Socialism
What are your thoughts on liberal anti-capitalism and reclaiming liberalism for the radical left?
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
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/
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
The root of the loss of community that everyone feels is capitalism's total emphasis on institutional logics of exit that make everything extremely transactional while completely ignoring the dual institutional logic of commitment, cooperation and voice. Community emphasizes the latter. We need communities based around shared property, mutual aid and collective action. Incidentally, having such communities could help solve some public goods problems in a non-state manner and be more egalitarian
What are your thoughts on liberal anti-capitalism and reclaiming liberalism for the radical left? Liberal anti-capitalists typically show that capitalism is illiberal through demonstrating how it violates liberal principles. An example would be David Ellerman in: [https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Article-from-ReclaimingLiberalismEbook.pdf](https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Article-from-ReclaimingLiberalismEbook.pdf) He argues that capitalist employment violates liberal principles of justice such as the norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match implying a theory of inalienable rights [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
Work Reform
Why the employer-employee relationship is based on theft and all companies should be worker-controlled - “Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons”
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
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
Why the employer-employee relationship is based on theft and all companies should be worker-controlled - “Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons” [https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ](https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ) [@workreform](https://lemmy.world/c/workreform)
Progressive Politics
The diagram centrists don't want you to see
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
You called centrists framing the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion a strawman then accepted the framing. Democratic theory requires consent. It just also requires consent to delegate ruling out consent to alienate management/governenance rights justified by inalienable rights.
Stable employee-owned firms:
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
A country that lets people sell voting rights wouldn't be democratic for long. Does democracy not work? Is it undesirable?
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
David Ellerman's modernization of the classical laborists' argument against capitalism is significantly more powerful than modern Marxism.
Marx's claim that private property is the root of capitalist appropriation has been disproven in modern theories of capitalism's property rights structure. Private property plays a role in giving bargain power to get favorable terms, but the ultimate legal basis of capitalist appropriation is the employer-employee contract
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Postcapitalist systems can use market prices and, in principle, be Pareto optimal on non-institutionally described states of affair
A case for universal worker democracy and why capitalism is theft - "Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons" [https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ](https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ) David Ellerman makes a unique argument for workers' control that is significantly stronger than the usual arguments the left makes as it implies that capitalism is invalid even when it is fully voluntary [@breadtube](https://lemmy.world/c/breadtube)
Progressive Politics
The diagram centrists don't want you to see
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Not a strawman. There are tons of examples of framing the capitalism issue in terms of consent vs coercion. Nozick talks about capitalist acts between consenting adults etc.
Many worker coops and majority employee-owned ESOPs exist today. It works.
Democratic theory argues that contracts based on consent to alienate are inherently invalid. Since the employment system is on the "wrong" side, the original theory invalidating these contracts is ignored and forgotten
Progressive Politics
The diagram centrists don't want you to see
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Alienist vs inalienist refers to whether voting/control rights are transferable (alienable).
Better to say institutions based on consent to alienate vs delegate
Voting rights' transferability with alienist systems implies inequality, but the core point is consent to alienate vs. delegate.
The employment contract is inherently an alienation contract. The workers give up and transfer the management rights to the employer and the employer manages in their own name
Progressive Politics
The diagram centrists don't want you to see
jlou 2 months ago • 66%
Alienist refers to alienation of rights.
Alienist = completely give up and transfer control rights with the recipient ruling in their own name and not in the name of the people governed
Inalienist = revocable delegation where the people retain control rights with the delegates governing in the name of the people governed
Democratic theory draws a distinction between these 2 types of contracts, and invalidates the former
The diagram should say alienation vs. delegation
Economic Socialism is Teaching Me What a Free Market Actually Looks Like [https://joelleichty.com/2024/03/18/economic-socialism-is-teaching-me-what-a-free-market-actually-looks-like/](https://joelleichty.com/2024/03/18/economic-socialism-is-teaching-me-what-a-free-market-actually-looks-like/) [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
The diagram centrists don't want you to see Centrism frames the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion and argue that capitalism is fine because workers consent in the legal sense to the labor contract. Democratic theory recognizes a distinction among voluntary contracts i.e. consent to alienate vs. consent to delegate. A centrist can't appeal to this distinction because capitalism and political democracy are on opposite sides [@progressivepolitics](https://lemmy.world/c/progressivepolitics)
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
You just mention the community in the post
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
What would be a more appropriate community?
The diagram capitalist liberals don't want you to see Capitalists frame the debate about capitalism as one of consent versus coercion and argue that capitalism is acceptable because workers consent in the legal sense to the employment contract. Democratic theory recognized a further distinction among voluntary contracts i.e. consent to alienate vs. consent to delegate. Capitalists can't appeal to this distinction because capitalism and political democracy are on opposite sides [@politicalmemes](https://lemmy.world/c/politicalmemes)
Socialismjlou 2 months ago • 100%
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
Ask Lemmyjlou 2 months ago • 100%
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%
jlou 2 months ago • 50%
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
Lefty Memes
Simple, really
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
The academic definition would be the systems of the historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production
Lefty Memes
Simple, really
jlou 2 months ago • 50%
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
Lefty Memes
Simple, really
jlou 2 months ago • 50%
Does economic education spoil students’ morality? Economists and the Trolley problem [https://www.economics-sociology.eu/?1030,en\_does-economic-education-spoil-students’-morality-economists-and-the-trolley-problem](https://www.economics-sociology.eu/?1030,en_does-economic-education-spoil-students’-morality-economists-and-the-trolley-problem) [@humanities](https://beehaw.org/c/humanities)
Lefty Memes
Simple, really
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
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
Lefty Memes
Simple, really
jlou 2 months ago • 92%
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
Unpopular Opinion
People like to criticize Free market economies (Capitalism) while using it more than they should.
jlou 2 months ago • 75%
Market economies aren't exclusive to capitalism. A postcapitalist society could use markets in some places.
It is capitalism's defenders, who are unscientific. Basic facts are unmentionable to capitalism's supporters. The fact that only persons can be responsible and things no matter how causally efficacious can't be responsible for anything is unmentionable in an economic context. The employer's appropriation of 100% of the positive and negative fruits of labor is obfuscated
SneerClub
Why capitalists are coming out against democracy - "Does classical liberalism imply democracy?"
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Did you read the article? It argues that democracy is necessary to meet the requirements of liberal procedural justice, so it isn't just a matter of outcomes
The Problem of Collective Harm: A Threshold Solution [https://ejpe.org/journal/article/view/798](https://ejpe.org/journal/article/view/798) "Many harms are collective: they are due to several individual actions that are as such harmless. At least in some cases, it seems impermissible to contribute to such harms, even if individual agents do not make a difference. The Problem of Collective Harm is the challenge of explaining why. I argue that, if the action is to be [moral], the probability of making a difference to harm must be small enough." [@humanities](https://beehaw.org/c/humanities)
196jlou 2 months ago • 100%
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
memesjlou 2 months ago • 100%
Who defines permitted contracts in a free market? Some right libertarians suggest that "free" markets include the "freedom" to sell labor by the lifetime or sell voting rights in the state.
"The comparable question about an individual is whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would." -- Robert Nozick
The theory that invalidates such contracts is the theory of inalienable rights. It has recently been shown to apply to capitalist employment
SneerClub
Why capitalists are coming out against democracy - "Does classical liberalism imply democracy?"
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Sure, as a historical tradition, classical liberalism has its share of anti-democratic figures. The point of the paper is to show that classical liberalism, as a body of coherent philosophy, actually implies democracy. Most classical liberals, historically, have been defenders of capitalism. Showing the ideology that usually capitalism apologists adhere to actually implies anti-capitalism is a powerful critique
SneerClub
Why capitalists are coming out against democracy - "Does classical liberalism imply democracy?"
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
I'm a leftist as well. The paper argues that the non-democratic liberals are wrong about the implications of liberal principles. It even goes further and makes an argument that coherent liberalism must also oppose capitalism, and capitalism is inherently non-democratic. By the end, the paper argues that a democratic economy controlled by workers is the only kind of economic organization compatible with liberalism. Capitalist liberalism is poison because it is incoherent
Why capitalists are coming out against democracy - "Does classical liberalism imply democracy?" [https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf](https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf) "There is a fault line running through ... liberalism as to whether or not democratic self- governance is a necessary part of a liberal social order. The democratic and non-democratic strains of classical liberalism are both present today. Many ... libertarians ... represent the non-democratic strain in their promotion of non-democratic sovereign city-states." [@sneerclub](https://awful.systems/c/sneerclub)
A profoundly stupid case about video game cheating could transform adblocking into a copyright infringement [https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law](https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law) [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
jlou 2 months ago • 25%
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
Communismjlou 2 months ago • 100%
All definitions are made up.
This definition captures the underlying notion.that
consensual democracy = self-government
Here is A. Chayes making a similar point:
“The shareholders were the electorate, the directors the legislature, enacting general policies and committing them to the officers for execution. Shareholder democracy, so-called, is misconceived because the shareholders are not the governed of the corporation whose consent must be sought.”
Robert Dahl had a similar understanding
jlou 2 months ago • 16%
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
Linuxjlou 2 months ago • 100%
"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
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
Capitalism isn't democratic. Democracy is the mode of governance where control rights over an organization are assigned to those governed by or in it. In the capitalist firm, the workers are the ones governed by management, yet control rights lie with the employer
jlou 2 months ago • 90%
Socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There are other alternatives like economic democracy or mutualism where all companies are democratic worker coops. There are other critics of capitalism besides Marx such as the classical laborists like Proudhon and their modern intellectual descendants like David Ellerman
Utility, social utility, democracy, and altruistic and moral behavior from unexploitability, Darwinian evolution, and tribes [https://www.rangevoting.org/OmoUtil.html](https://www.rangevoting.org/OmoUtil.html) "S.M.Omohundro in 2007, by building on and/or simplifying ideas by a large number of economists, demonstrated that the philosophy of utilitarianism is forced upon an organism if that organism wishes to be "unexploitable." Exploitable organisms presumably tend to get exploited, suffer a competitive disadvantage." [@humanities](https://beehaw.org/c/humanities)
libertarianism
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
@PropaGandalf, what is your take on the article's argument?
I can't respond to @minnix's lemmy account, so I will put my response here to the second half of their post.
The traditional libertarian stories that are claimed to rule out self-sale contracts are addressed in:
https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philmore-1982.scan_.pdf
The theory of inalienable rights is what rules out these contract for all coherent classical liberals. Notably, the set of ruled out contracts includes the employer-employee contract
libertarianism
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their deliberate and intentional joint actions.
@minnix, that is the definition of de facto responsibility. It is meaningful concept outside of a legal context. Ellerman's theory is a theory of how the legal system should operate. However, he does draw an equality between the tenet of imputation and the labor theory of property. I would recommend anyone interested to read his other work
Humanities & Cultures
The results of the biggest study on guaranteed income programs are finally in
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
If you emphasize giving workers what they literally produce instead of its value, the contrast is even greater. With value, you are still emphasizing the pie metaphor, which capitalist economists invented to obfuscate the real issues. In terms of property rights to the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs, workers qua employees get 0% while employers qua employer get 100%. In the property theoretic terms, workers don't get the fruits of their labor at all
@humanities
Pro-market anti-capitalism Many on the left conflate markets with capitalism and oppose both. This is a mistake. Markets freed from capitalism where every workers' inalienable right to worker democracy may be useful, and help avoid the calculation problem. That being said, I'm highly sympathetic to those that seek to explore what might be possible without markets as that area is under-explored. Ultimately, we should emphasize worker coops Here is an non-nuanced meme [@politicalmemes](https://lemmy.world/c/politicalmemes)
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) “An inalienable right is a right that may not be ceded or transferred away even with the consent of the holders of the right. Any contract to alienate such a right would be an inherently invalid contract, and, vice-versa, a right such that any contract to alienate it was inherently invalid would thus be an inalienable right.” [@libertarianism](https://lemmy.world/c/libertarianism)
Asklemmyjlou 2 months ago • 100%
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
General Discussion
Every company should be owned by its employees
jlou 2 months ago • 100%
I made a post in this community of a moral argument for mandating employee-owned companies. It isn't based on a gut feeling. It is based on the theory of inalienable rights. Here is a link to that post:
A moral argument for why all firms should be employee-owned - "Inalienable Right: Part 1 The Basic Argument" [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) [@general](https://lemmy.world/c/general)
Partial Common Ownership: A New Model for Ownership - A new alternative to capitalist private property that addresses scarcity in the small Partial Common Ownership (PCO) is a flexible template for reconfiguring property relations, which has inspired many of us at RadicalxChange because it opens the door to a different kind of conversation about capitalism. [https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/pco-a-new-model-of-ownership/](https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/pco-a-new-model-of-ownership/) [@anarchism](https://slrpnk.net/c/anarchism)
Partial Common Ownership: A New Model for Ownership - A new alternative to capitalist private property [https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/pco-a-new-model-of-ownership/](https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/pco-a-new-model-of-ownership/) The main disagreement I have with the article is that voting rights over management of firms should lie exclusively with workers. Besides that, the alternative described should be interesting to anti-capitalists. The revenue from partial common ownership could be allocated using non-market mechanisms in democratic communities [@leftism](https://lemmy.world/c/leftism)
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - All responsibility lies with workers [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
AI, Guaranteed Income, and the “Which Way Is Up?” Problem Afflicting Our Elites [https://cepr.net/ai-guaranteed-income-and-the-which-way-is-up-problem-afflicting-our-elites/](https://cepr.net/ai-guaranteed-income-and-the-which-way-is-up-problem-afflicting-our-elites/) [@politics](https://beehaw.org/c/politics)
Rethinking free and open source and its role in the movement against capitalism - "Copyfarleft and Copyjustright" [https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/copyfarleft-and-copyjustright](https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/copyfarleft-and-copyjustright) This is an interesting paper and something like this should be explored. Although, I would shift the anti-capitalist analysis to the labor theory of property and shift some of the critique of property to employment contracts. [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
Capital Has No Borders—Why Should We? Precarious immigration status creates an exploitable labor force, allowing bosses to drive down wages for everyone. Inside the labor case for open borders: [https://inthesetimes.com/article/capital-open-borders-immigration-labor-exploitation-migrant-crisis-urban-citizenship](https://inthesetimes.com/article/capital-open-borders-immigration-labor-exploitation-migrant-crisis-urban-citizenship) [@politics](https://beehaw.org/c/politics)
The Philosophy of Liberty – On Liberalism [https://acoup.blog/2024/07/05/collections-the-philosophy-of-liberty-on-liberalism/](https://acoup.blog/2024/07/05/collections-the-philosophy-of-liberty-on-liberalism/) [@progressivepolitics](https://lemmy.world/c/progressivepolitics)
The Problems with Money and Without Money, and Communal Currencies and Vouchers - "Plural Money, Socially-Provided Goods, and the Principal-Agent Problem" [https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-socially-provided-goods-and-the-principal-agent-problem/](https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-socially-provided-goods-and-the-principal-agent-problem/) [@leftism](https://lemmy.world/c/leftism)
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - How personal responsibility, contra-capitalists, actually implies anti-capitalism [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) [@libertyhub](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/libertyhub)
Tax the land One radical idea to solve America’s housing crisis. [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22951092/land-tax-housing-crisis](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22951092/land-tax-housing-crisis) [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
We Don't Agree on Capitalism: Demarcating the Red and Black [https://wedontagree.net/we-dont-agree-on-capitalism-(essay)](https://wedontagree.net/we-dont-agree-on-capitalism-(essay)) [@libertyhub](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/libertyhub)
LGBT and Marginalized Voices Are Not Welcome on Threads [https://www.macstories.net/stories/lgbt-and-marginalized-voices-are-not-welcome-on-threads/](https://www.macstories.net/stories/lgbt-and-marginalized-voices-are-not-welcome-on-threads/) [@lgbtq\_plus](https://beehaw.org/c/lgbtq_plus)
The case for employee-owned companies [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies) In the sidebar, it asks for recommendations such as reading lists. I propose that David Ellerman's work be included in the reading list. He makes a unique argument in favor of workplace democracy [@progressivepolitics](https://lemmy.world/c/progressivepolitics)
Does classical liberalism imply democracy? [https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf](https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf) "There is a fault line running through classical liberalism as to whether or not democratic self-governance is a necessary part of a liberal social order. The democratic and non-democratic strains of classical liberalism are both present today particularly in the United States. Many contemporary libertarians ... represent the non-democratic strain in their promotion of non-democratic sovereign city-states." [@humanities](https://beehaw.org/c/humanities)
The Telekommunist Manifesto [https://www.networkcultures.org/\_uploads/%233notebook\_telekommunist.pdf](https://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekommunist.pdf) "Proposing ‘venture communism’ ... for workers’ self-organization, Kleiner spins Marx and Engels’ ... Manifesto ... into the age of the internet. ... [V]enture communism allocates capital that is ... needed to accomplish what capitalism cannot: the ongoing proliferation of free culture and free networks. In developing [this] concept ..., Kleiner provides a critique of copyright." [@leftism](https://lemmy.world/c/leftism)
"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument." How the capitalist employer-employee relationship violates fundamental rights [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) Solarpunk should emphasize democracy in the workplace and not take something like the employer-employee contract as part of the furniture of the universe [@solarpunk](https://slrpnk.net/c/solarpunk)
"Economic Democracy: arguments from the US" for workers' self-management and against the employer-employee contract Economic democracy is a philosophy that shows that all workers have an inalienable right to workplace democracy/workers' self-management/worker coops. The employer-employee contract violates that right even if employment is fully voluntary. An inalienable right is a right that can't be given up or transferred even with consent [https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5\_ZE?t=566](https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5_ZE?t=566) [@leftism](https://lemmy.world/c/leftism)
Capitalist Markets Aren’t “Free.” They’re Planned for Profit. Neoliberalism was never about shrinking the state to unfetter markets and enhance human freedom. In her new book, Vulture Capitalism, Grace Blakeley argues that neoliberalism has always sought to wield state power to maximize profits for the rich. [https://jacobin.com/2024/03/neoliberalism-markets-planning-vulture-capitalism/](https://jacobin.com/2024/03/neoliberalism-markets-planning-vulture-capitalism/) [@solarpunk](https://slrpnk.net/c/solarpunk)
Collective Action Problems are Not a Capitalist Plot: On the Non-Triviality of Going from Individual to Collective Rationality [https://wedontagree.net/collective-action-problems-are-not-a-capitalist-plot](https://wedontagree.net/collective-action-problems-are-not-a-capitalist-plot) [@socialism](https://beehaw.org/c/socialism)
Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics [https://hal.science/hal-02929260/document](https://hal.science/hal-02929260/document) "Research in economics is anthropocentric. It only cares about the welfare of humans, and usually does not concern itself with animals. When it does, ... animals only have instrumental value for humans. Yet unlike water, trees or vegetables, and like humans, most animals have a brain and a nervous system. They can feel pain and pleasure, and many argue that their welfare should matter." [@vegan](https://slrpnk.net/c/vegan)
Property in land - What are your thoughts on Georgist libertarianism? The basic idea behind Georgism is that land and natural resources are not the fruits of anyone’s labor, so no one has a natural right to it. Georgism proposes based on this that collective ownership arrangements be applied to such resources. Geolibertarianism supports full private property rights in the products of labor. [https://youtu.be/smi\_iIoKybg](https://youtu.be/smi_iIoKybg) What are your thoughts on this approach to natural resources? [@libertarian](https://sh.itjust.works/c/libertarian)
Take it from a former banker: the budget is for ordinary people. The mega-rich look on and laugh - Gary Stevenson [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/banker-budget-mega-rich-traders-jeremy-hunt](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/banker-budget-mega-rich-traders-jeremy-hunt) [@politics](https://beehaw.org/c/politics)
The case for liberal anti-capitalism in the 21st century [https://aeon.co/essays/the-case-for-liberal-socialism-in-the-21st-century](https://aeon.co/essays/the-case-for-liberal-socialism-in-the-21st-century) The most powerful critiques of capitalism are actually liberal critiques in that they appeal to the liberal principles that defenders of capitalism invoke, but show that capitalism does not in fact satisfy them even in the ideal case. [@general](https://lemmy.world/c/general)
"Zoë Hitzig | What is quadratic funding?" - A democratic mechanism that a postcapitalist society could use to allocate resources to public goods, so they're available to each according to need [https://youtu.be/xwY0UAk14Rk](https://youtu.be/xwY0UAk14Rk) Quadratic funding is an allocation mechanism that allocates more resources to projects that are more popular than projects that are supported by well-resourced concentrated few. It has the potential to solve problems in campaign finance, journalism and FOSS [@leftism](https://lemmy.world/c/leftism)
How capitalism violates the most boring and obvious principle of justice and treats people like things - "Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" [https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/](https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/) Capitalism violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match in the employer-employee contract. [@aboringdystopia](https://lemmy.world/c/aboringdystopia)
Collective Action Problems are Not a Capitalist Plot: On the Non-Triviality of Going from Individual to Collective Rationality [https://wedontagree.net/collective-action-problems-are-not-a-capitalist-plot](https://wedontagree.net/collective-action-problems-are-not-a-capitalist-plot) [@anarchism](https://lemmy.ml/c/anarchism)