Liberalism is not necessarily capitalist. It is possible to be an anti-capitalist liberal by recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy @technology
I don’t think that’s true, at least not given the classical definition found here on Wikipedia. In general, I think John Locke embodies liberalism really well, and he believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. So to me, property has been a foundational part of liberalism since its creation.
Then again, a lot of people use “liberal” to essentially be the same as “leftist,” meaning anyone left of center. But I think that’s silly, because in my eyes and using the academic definition of liberalism, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have strong liberal roots, and they’re different in where they deviate from that (Democrats are weak on property rights and free markets, Republicans are weak on civil liberties and secularism).
If you’re anti-capitalist, by definition you’re not a liberal IMO. And I think most people who claim to be anti-capitalist aren’t actually anti-capitalist (can’t speak for you though), they’re just frustrated at our corrupted form of capitalism. A purer form of capitalism (less protectionism, i.e. fewer IP protections, fewer options to limit liability, etc) accompanied with a healthy safety net (e.g. something like UBI) and worker protections is probably more than adequate to most who espouse anti-capitalist sentiment.
It is exactly people’s right to property that rules out capitalism. The principle behind property is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. The capitalist employer-employee relationship has the employer appropriating 100% of the positive and negative fruits of workers’ labor while employees receive 0% of the property rights to the produced output and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The only way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is in worker coops @technology
No, the way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is to not sell their labor, but instead sell the fruits of their labor. Worker coops are one way to do that, or they can become independent contractors. Both of those are capitalist, since the only real requirement for capitalism is for property ownership to be owned by an individual or small group, not collectively. A coop is essentially the same thing any other corporation, but the workers are the shareholders. There’s still a well-defined system of exclusive ownership of the means of production (i.e. the workers become capital owners).
But a lot of people don’t actually want that. Owning your own business (or having a share of your business) means taking on a lot of risk. If times get hard, your income takes a big hit because you’re absorbing the risk. If the venture fails, that capital disappears.
That’s why a lot of people prefer to sell their labor, they like the consistent paycheck. If the company loses money, they still get paid at their agreed-upon rate, or they lose their job and find a job elsewhere. It’s the same reason why a lot of people prefer to rent instead of owning their own property, they don’t want the risk associated with capital ownership. I create more value for my company than I earn, and that’s 100% okay because I’m looking for stability (I have a wife and kids), so I’d rather someone else get the rewards for hustling than have the stress of having to do that myself. I tried contracting for a few years, and that all ended when COVID happened and all of my clients disappeared. So now I’m content selling my labor and getting stability in return.
If worker coops are what you want, then you’re not anti-capitalist, you’re just against selling your labor and are comfortable taking on some risk. That’s completely valid in a capitalist society, and you have every right to start or join a coop. If you’re okay with labor unions, then you mostly just want to empower workers to get more leverage over their employers to force them to have thinner margins (but they’ll still need to be compensated for the risk). If you’re truly anti-capitalist, you wouldn’t be satisfied with coops or unions since those are capitalist systems.
The tenet behind property is based on the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible. Notably, not wanting to be held responsible for the results of your actions doesn’t change de facto responsibility, so your point is not relevant.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay. Self-insurance can stabilize pay. @technology
It’s really not. The core aspect of capitalism is ownership of private property. Whether I hire someone to help me deploy that capital successfully is an implementation detail.
The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible.
But workers don’t want the responsibility, that’s why they seek out employment from someone who will take that responsibility. If they wanted the responsibility, they’d start their own private venture instead.
The responsibility should be on the property owner. They own the inputs and the outputs, so they’re responsible if something goes wrong. That’s the main problem with our corporate model, those in charge (capital owners) are largely immune from the consequences of their actions. If we put execs in jail if they knowingly allow sale of unsafe products, the system would self-correct. If the worker is jailed instead, that just encourages a system of scape-goating. The worker should never be legally culpable for following orders, that responsibility should lie on the owner of the capital.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay.
They provide neither, what they provide are organizations where workers have a say in how things are done. Stability is not on the list whatsoever. However, since workers have more of a say, they can help make decisions to improve stability of both, so workers feel more empowered and interested in the future of the business.
Unions provide stable jobs and pay. Salary positions provide stable pay, but not stable jobs.
Capitalism’s critics focus on its labor relations.
Not wanting responsibility is irrelevant as there is no de facto action they can take that transfers de facto responsibility (DFR) to be solely the employer’s.
There is no moral reason for the last legal owner of the inputs to “swallow” the “cost” rather than the party DFR for using them up compensating them. Execs r workers here. R u saying that workers aren’t responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?
Yes, critics of capitalism focus on labor relations, which is where the Marxist labor theory of value comes from. I honestly reject the LTV because it completely eliminates the reward for risk-taking. Why should you create a new thing that may or may not work out if the most you can get from it is the amount of labor you put in? That’s like gambling for a 5% return when you can get a guaranteed 5% return from your bank, it’s irrational.
In capitalism, the price of a good will eventually trend toward the cost to produce it, after a period of outsized returns by being first to market. So innovation is rewarded through higher margins, then competition comes in and creates a race to the bottom until the next innovation comes out.
The main problem being solved here has little to do with capitalism itself, but with cronyism. Capitalists want high margins, and there are two ways to get that:
rent seeking - if a capitalist can get a monopoly, they can control their margins since nobody can undercut them
innovation - continually produce new products with high margins and cash in before anyone undercuts you
The first is way easier than the second since it requires almost no ongoing work, other than maybe sharing profits with a few influential politicians. But that’s not a problem with capitalism, which is a pure dog-eat-dog system. Socialists and others on the far left attack this amalgamation of systems and call the whole thing “capitalism,” when really capitalism is intended to be a completely separate system from the state (unlike socialism, which is most often combined with the state).
R u saying that workers aren’t responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?
I’m saying the one responsible is the one with the motive.
In most cases, it’s either the capital owner or the executive team that should be taking responsibility for these decisions. They’re the ones cutting funding for safety equipment, replacing materials with cheaper alternatives, etc. Or maybe it’s a middle manager who is trying to look good for a promotion. Whoever made the decision in full knowledge of it being a potential problem is the one at fault, and that’s almost never the worker.
Execs are usually not workers, they’re the ones in control of the capital. Some execs are, but most don’t produce any of the goods, they merely orchestrate it. In other words, in most cases, there needs to be mens rea, mere proof that a criminal act was committed is rarely sufficient (e.g. most courts would acquit if a reasonable person would assume their actions were legal). In a capitalist system, it’s usually the owners of capital that have motive, the workers just want to get through the day and collect their paycheck and saving the company a few dollars by using sub-standard parts has almost no upside to the average worker.
I reject the Marxist LTV too. The theory I have described is the labor theory of property (LTP) that workers in the firm should jointly own the produced outputs and be liable for the used-up inputs. Workers and non-voting preferred shareholders are duly compensated.
The pure application of the tenet of legal responsibility and de facto responsibility matching is to deliberate and intentional joint actions. The actions of workers in production are premeditated and deliberate.
Liberalism is not necessarily capitalist. It is possible to be an anti-capitalist liberal by recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy @technology
I don’t think that’s true, at least not given the classical definition found here on Wikipedia. In general, I think John Locke embodies liberalism really well, and he believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. So to me, property has been a foundational part of liberalism since its creation.
Then again, a lot of people use “liberal” to essentially be the same as “leftist,” meaning anyone left of center. But I think that’s silly, because in my eyes and using the academic definition of liberalism, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have strong liberal roots, and they’re different in where they deviate from that (Democrats are weak on property rights and free markets, Republicans are weak on civil liberties and secularism).
If you’re anti-capitalist, by definition you’re not a liberal IMO. And I think most people who claim to be anti-capitalist aren’t actually anti-capitalist (can’t speak for you though), they’re just frustrated at our corrupted form of capitalism. A purer form of capitalism (less protectionism, i.e. fewer IP protections, fewer options to limit liability, etc) accompanied with a healthy safety net (e.g. something like UBI) and worker protections is probably more than adequate to most who espouse anti-capitalist sentiment.
It is exactly people’s right to property that rules out capitalism. The principle behind property is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. The capitalist employer-employee relationship has the employer appropriating 100% of the positive and negative fruits of workers’ labor while employees receive 0% of the property rights to the produced output and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The only way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is in worker coops @technology
No, the way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is to not sell their labor, but instead sell the fruits of their labor. Worker coops are one way to do that, or they can become independent contractors. Both of those are capitalist, since the only real requirement for capitalism is for property ownership to be owned by an individual or small group, not collectively. A coop is essentially the same thing any other corporation, but the workers are the shareholders. There’s still a well-defined system of exclusive ownership of the means of production (i.e. the workers become capital owners).
But a lot of people don’t actually want that. Owning your own business (or having a share of your business) means taking on a lot of risk. If times get hard, your income takes a big hit because you’re absorbing the risk. If the venture fails, that capital disappears.
That’s why a lot of people prefer to sell their labor, they like the consistent paycheck. If the company loses money, they still get paid at their agreed-upon rate, or they lose their job and find a job elsewhere. It’s the same reason why a lot of people prefer to rent instead of owning their own property, they don’t want the risk associated with capital ownership. I create more value for my company than I earn, and that’s 100% okay because I’m looking for stability (I have a wife and kids), so I’d rather someone else get the rewards for hustling than have the stress of having to do that myself. I tried contracting for a few years, and that all ended when COVID happened and all of my clients disappeared. So now I’m content selling my labor and getting stability in return.
If worker coops are what you want, then you’re not anti-capitalist, you’re just against selling your labor and are comfortable taking on some risk. That’s completely valid in a capitalist society, and you have every right to start or join a coop. If you’re okay with labor unions, then you mostly just want to empower workers to get more leverage over their employers to force them to have thinner margins (but they’ll still need to be compensated for the risk). If you’re truly anti-capitalist, you wouldn’t be satisfied with coops or unions since those are capitalist systems.
Employment is a core aspect of capitalism.
The tenet behind property is based on the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible. Notably, not wanting to be held responsible for the results of your actions doesn’t change de facto responsibility, so your point is not relevant.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay. Self-insurance can stabilize pay.
@technology
It’s really not. The core aspect of capitalism is ownership of private property. Whether I hire someone to help me deploy that capital successfully is an implementation detail.
But workers don’t want the responsibility, that’s why they seek out employment from someone who will take that responsibility. If they wanted the responsibility, they’d start their own private venture instead.
The responsibility should be on the property owner. They own the inputs and the outputs, so they’re responsible if something goes wrong. That’s the main problem with our corporate model, those in charge (capital owners) are largely immune from the consequences of their actions. If we put execs in jail if they knowingly allow sale of unsafe products, the system would self-correct. If the worker is jailed instead, that just encourages a system of scape-goating. The worker should never be legally culpable for following orders, that responsibility should lie on the owner of the capital.
They provide neither, what they provide are organizations where workers have a say in how things are done. Stability is not on the list whatsoever. However, since workers have more of a say, they can help make decisions to improve stability of both, so workers feel more empowered and interested in the future of the business.
Unions provide stable jobs and pay. Salary positions provide stable pay, but not stable jobs.
Capitalism’s critics focus on its labor relations.
Not wanting responsibility is irrelevant as there is no de facto action they can take that transfers de facto responsibility (DFR) to be solely the employer’s.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-do-americans-want-from-private-government-experimental-evidence-demonstrates-that-americans-want-workplace-democracy/D9C1DBB6F95D9EEA35A34ABF016511F4
There is no moral reason for the last legal owner of the inputs to “swallow” the “cost” rather than the party DFR for using them up compensating them. Execs r workers here. R u saying that workers aren’t responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?
@technology
Yes, critics of capitalism focus on labor relations, which is where the Marxist labor theory of value comes from. I honestly reject the LTV because it completely eliminates the reward for risk-taking. Why should you create a new thing that may or may not work out if the most you can get from it is the amount of labor you put in? That’s like gambling for a 5% return when you can get a guaranteed 5% return from your bank, it’s irrational.
In capitalism, the price of a good will eventually trend toward the cost to produce it, after a period of outsized returns by being first to market. So innovation is rewarded through higher margins, then competition comes in and creates a race to the bottom until the next innovation comes out.
The main problem being solved here has little to do with capitalism itself, but with cronyism. Capitalists want high margins, and there are two ways to get that:
The first is way easier than the second since it requires almost no ongoing work, other than maybe sharing profits with a few influential politicians. But that’s not a problem with capitalism, which is a pure dog-eat-dog system. Socialists and others on the far left attack this amalgamation of systems and call the whole thing “capitalism,” when really capitalism is intended to be a completely separate system from the state (unlike socialism, which is most often combined with the state).
I’m saying the one responsible is the one with the motive.
In most cases, it’s either the capital owner or the executive team that should be taking responsibility for these decisions. They’re the ones cutting funding for safety equipment, replacing materials with cheaper alternatives, etc. Or maybe it’s a middle manager who is trying to look good for a promotion. Whoever made the decision in full knowledge of it being a potential problem is the one at fault, and that’s almost never the worker.
Execs are usually not workers, they’re the ones in control of the capital. Some execs are, but most don’t produce any of the goods, they merely orchestrate it. In other words, in most cases, there needs to be mens rea, mere proof that a criminal act was committed is rarely sufficient (e.g. most courts would acquit if a reasonable person would assume their actions were legal). In a capitalist system, it’s usually the owners of capital that have motive, the workers just want to get through the day and collect their paycheck and saving the company a few dollars by using sub-standard parts has almost no upside to the average worker.
I reject the Marxist LTV too. The theory I have described is the labor theory of property (LTP) that workers in the firm should jointly own the produced outputs and be liable for the used-up inputs. Workers and non-voting preferred shareholders are duly compensated.
The pure application of the tenet of legal responsibility and de facto responsibility matching is to deliberate and intentional joint actions. The actions of workers in production are premeditated and deliberate.
@technology