jlou

Capitalism is inherently based on dishonesty. It routinely treats people as things in the employer-employee relationship. When the factual and legal situation don't match, that is morally a fraud.

Postcapitalism would consists of various intersecting and overlapping voluntary democratic associations managing their own collectivized means of production. Within these groups, there would still be a notion of possession of the shared asset.

@technology

Here are a few anarchist and anarchist-adjacent sources to go into specifics about institutions that an anarchist society might have:

The Possibility of Cooperation by Michael Taylor - A critique of Hobbes's argument for the state with modern game theory

https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-a-new-currency-design/ - A currency design that encourages mutual aid. Mentions how collective ownership can be achieved without a state.

Ancaps support employment contracts. This is contradictory: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

@technology

Orchestration is labor here. Execs are workers as far as the labor theory of property is concerned. I agree that regulatory capture is a problem. I have not mentioned the state here tho. Anti-capitalists work with the historical definition of capitalism.

Also, going back to stability, coops provide stable jobs because they take labor force as a fixed factor and during a downturn they prefer cutting pay over cutting some jobs to maintain the pay of others' jobs

@technology

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

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

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 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

Liberalism is not necessarily capitalist. It is possible to be an anti-capitalist liberal by recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy @technology

Dialetheism is the view that some contradictions (i.e. p and not-p) are true. The argument for this is based on the liar's paradox:

This sentence is false.

If you follow the logic through, you get the conclusion that it is both true and false. It requires some changes to Frege-Russell-style classical logic to be coherent, but it allows one to solve almost all paradoxes in one philosophical move. For example, you can have naive set comprehension principles

Being anti-capitalist doesn't immediately imply being a communist. There are other alternatives to capitalism such as Economic Democracy.

This is also a straw man fallacy

I disagree. There are plenty of examples of liberal anti-capitalists such as David Ellerman

After capitalism,

1. All firms should be democratic worker coops. The legal system would recognize the inalienable right to workers' control.
2. Land and natural resources should be collectively owned with revenue from private use of this collective property going out as a UBI. The atmosphere is included and any carbon fees are included.
3. Pools of collectivized capital democratically controlled by workers in member worker coops. Each worker coop leases all its capital from the pool