An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
The founders can hold more or all non-voting preferred stock in the worker coop to represent their larger stake and investment. They can also use a separate corporation, which only the founders own, with no employees to hold their capital and then lease it the worker coop
It would definitely be easier in an economy where this was the only way of doing things.
I am not a lawyer.
Based on the underlying economic theory and ethical arguments for worker coops/employee-owned companies, what you could do in such a situation is make a separate legal entity for the worker coop, and then lease the assets of the current legal entity to the worker coop. You and your partner maintain exclusive ownership of the original legal entity
Or we could abolish the employer-employee contract and mandate that all firms be worker coops, so that no one could appropriate the positive and negative fruits of other people’s labor
That sentence has a presupposition. The sentence I used can be fully formalized in a logic with predicates for knowledge of an entity and truth
Being logical doesn’t imply knowing every true sentence.
Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox
Marxism is not the only anti-capitalist critique. There are more modern non-Marxist critiques of capitalism such as the theory of inalienable rights. See: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/
I am a mutualist as well. I just use the term, economic democracy as David Ellerman calls it, instead because mutualism doesn’t seem as clear. Also, mutualism has anarchist connotations, which I am sympathetic to, but I believe the movement to abolish capitalism should be broader than anarchism.
In other words,
anarchist economic democracy = mutualism
I am an anti-capitalist.
To get rid of capitalism, you don’t have to abolish absentee ownership of capital. A worker coop can lease capital from third parties and remain a non-capitalist democratic worker coop. Abolishing capitalism just requires abolishing the employment contract and common ownership of land and natural resources. Without the employment contract, everyone is either individually or jointly self-employed, so every firm is a worker coop
“This sentence contains 2 words” is a sensible sentence. It has 5 words, so what the sentence says is false.
The self-reference in the sentence is similar to that of the Liar’s paradox. Cousins of that paradox have been used to prove major limitative results in mathematical logic such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
In usual logic, a false sentence implies every sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
Also, if sentence P is false, then “P is false” is true
It is a paradox if you believe there are omniscient beings. If there are no omniscient beings, there is no paradox. The sentence is either true or false. If the sentence is true, we have an omniscient being that lacks knowledge about a true statement. Contradiction. If it is false, there is an omniscient being that knows it to be true. This means that the statement is true, but the statement itself says that no omniscient being knows it to be true. Contradiction.
Self-referential paradoxes are at the heart of limitative results in mathematical logic on what is provable, so it seems plausible a similar self-referential statement rules out omniscience.
Greek gods are gods in a different sense than the monotheistic conception of god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Sure, so the argument I give only applies to the latter sense.
Capitalism and authoritarian Marxist-Leninist states are not the only alternatives. There are other alternatives like Georgist economic democracy. In such a system, everyone would be either individually or jointly self-employed while receiving their share of the value derived from natural resources
If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient, there is actually a way to disprove the possibility with the following paradox:
This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.
There are also more traditional arguments like the problem of evil
There are other alternatives to capitalism besides Authoritarian Marxist-Leninist states. An example would be Georgist economic democracy. Some policies in such an economy:
All firms would be legally mandated to protect the inalienable right to worker democracy by structuring as democratic worker coops. There would thus be no haves appropriating 100% of the fruits of the have nots’ labor
100% land tax and carbon tax
PCO for all capital
Guaranteed minimum income
The root of the loss of community that everyone feels is capitalism’s total emphasis on institutional logics of exit that make everything extremely transactional while completely ignoring the dual institutional logic of commitment, cooperation and voice. Community emphasizes the latter. We need communities based around shared property, mutual aid and collective action. Incidentally, having such communities could help solve some public goods problems in a non-state manner and be more egalitarian
You called centrists framing the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion a strawman then accepted the framing. Democratic theory requires consent. It just also requires consent to delegate ruling out consent to alienate management/governenance rights justified by inalienable rights.
Stable employee-owned firms:
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
A country that lets people sell voting rights wouldn’t be democratic for long. Does democracy not work? Is it undesirable?
Not a strawman. There are tons of examples of framing the capitalism issue in terms of consent vs coercion. Nozick talks about capitalist acts between consenting adults etc.
Many worker coops and majority employee-owned ESOPs exist today. It works.
Democratic theory argues that contracts based on consent to alienate are inherently invalid. Since the employment system is on the “wrong” side, the original theory invalidating these contracts is ignored and forgotten
Alienist vs inalienist refers to whether voting/control rights are transferable (alienable).
Better to say institutions based on consent to alienate vs delegate
Voting rights’ transferability with alienist systems implies inequality, but the core point is consent to alienate vs. delegate.
The employment contract is inherently an alienation contract. The workers give up and transfer the management rights to the employer and the employer manages in their own name
Any company that receives government subsidies or is bailed out because it’s too big too fail or whatever the reason should be mandated to become a worker coop
@politics