jlou

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

@sneerclub

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

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

@memes

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

Marx wouldn't have described an economy that uses markets as socialist

@leftism

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

@sneerclub

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

"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

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

@leftism

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