A simple argument shows that capitalism is theft and workers have an inalienable right to workplace democracy - 35 minute video

“David Ellerman: Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons”

https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

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 for all production in the firm

@solarpunk

  • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    0·
    8 months ago

    TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you’re not liable – doesn’t matter; you can’t choose to be “not liable”.

    However, when you commit a not-a-crime for an employer, only the employer gets the consequences (aka gets 100% payment/income from that work). They’re treated as if they’re the only one responsible/liable for that action. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.

    The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can’t have “its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime”.

    • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
      1·
      8 months ago

      Its worth mentioning: workers would also be liable for company failure; but that actually might be one of the best parts of this idea.

      See, right now you can get hired to run a company, drive it straight into the ground with stupid decisions, get paid the whole time, and then leave the now-bankrupted company with no downside for yourself. That would no longer be allowed if you were held responsible for the company at a personal level.

  • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    0·
    8 months ago

    I’m usually the one person in the Solarpunk lemmy who debates “capitalism==bad” titles. This was a solid video; I don’t think I have any critiques of the arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. The speaker does a good job at not being polarizing or sensationaliazing the topic; he simply presents the information without getting emotionally charged.

    That’s in contrast to the Lemmy title, which I think is senasionalized/polarizing and a bit of an insult to the listener; telling them the conclusion they should have instead of assuming they’re smart enough to understand the consequences themselves. “Why workplace democracy is an inalienable right, and its incompatibility with capitalism” would be more appropriate title IMO.

    Either way I’m glad this was posted.