I did my part in trying to elect Harris.
What is the point in moderating if even after moderating Democrats are perceived as too left-wing?
*Perceived* leftward shift. The Democrats aren't that left wing in the first place. If democrats are going to be perceived as too left wing regardless of reality, they might as well take on some left-wing policies, so they can at least bribe voters with stuff that obviously and immediately makes things better for them like UBI.
If you're suggesting throw LGBTQ people under the bus, that is just wrong. What would we be fighting for at that point?
Is there any evidence to support the claim that ultra-progressives caused Harris to lose?
If the Republicans are going to call the Democrats communists and socialist regardless of how moderate a campaign Democrats run, Democrats might as well lean further left on economic policy. Appealing to the right does nothing because the right can appeal to the right better than the center-left can
5/5
Creating or joining a worker coop is a much more actionable political step that someone could take then completely transforming the government. If the worker coop movement grows big enough, it could acquire the economic power to purchase it own lobbyists to influence the political process to hopefully pass those reforms
4/5
It is irrelevant that some workers don't want to be held responsible for the positive and negative results of their actions (the whole result of production). Responsibility can't be transferred even with consent. If an employer-employee cooperate to commit a crime, both are responsible. This argument is establishes an inalienable right i.e. a right that can't be given up or transferred even with consent like political voting rights today
3/5
The idea that the employer is production's whole result's just appropriator due to the risk they bear is tautological and circular reasoning. Risk, in this case, refers to bearing the liabilities for used-up inputs, which is production's whole result's negative component. It ignores the joint de facto responsibility of workers in the firm for using up inputs to produce. By the norm of legal and de facto responsibility matching, workers should get the whole result of production
2/5
The empirical evidence I have seen on worker coops and employee-owned companies seems to suggest that worker-run companies are slightly more productive.
I oppose socialism as I think markets are useful. I advocate economic democracy
In an economic democracy, the employer-employee contract is abolished, so workers automatically legally get voting rights over management upon joining a firm.
1/5
Worker coops can have managers. Managers' interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation. Managers will make sure workers they are managing perform. The difference is that these managers are ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers and are thus their delegates.
Profits/wages don't have to be divided equally among workers.
I'm going to use multiple toots since I'm on Mastodon
Your reforms sound good, but aren't pragmatic. Today's system requires you to have lobbyists to push an agenda through. Who is going to fund the lobbyists to make these reforms happen.
Also, even in an ideal capitalism, there is still an injustice at the heart of the system. The employer-employee contract violates the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, but employer is held solely legally responsible.
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
I'm not a socialist because I think markets are useful and haven't seen a planned economy proposal that seemed plausible. Worker co-ops and unions aren't socialism in 20th century sense because they are technically compatible with markets and private property.
An economic democracy is a market economy where all firms are worker co-ops, so I was speaking about managers in a worker co-op
@technology