Reasons for anticapitalism

1. It violates inalienable rights to democracy and to get the positive and negative fruits of their labor, which flow from the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. In the firm, the employees are de facto responsible, but employer is held solely legally responsible.
2. It violates the equal claim to natural resources everyone today and future generations have. It, instead, incentivizes ruining the environment

Doing what you're told does not relieve you of responsibility for the results of your actions

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

What do you mean by valid input?

Both capital and labor are causally efficacious in production. Why would people use them otherwise? Capital is also the fruits of past labor, so denying capital remuneration denies remuneration to the workers that created that capital @asklemmy

1. A FairPhone that can run GrapheneOS.

2. Dual screen phone (separate screens not foldable) with that can run GrapheneOS

3. Tablet with keyboard case that runs GrapheneOS and has support for Linux apps, so I can replace my PC with something more private and secure

4. Don't know if this is possible but a keyboard where each key can show different icons depending on if the shift or control key is pressed to make keyboard shortcuts easier to learn, but still possible to type without looking

Capitalism and markets
Anticapitalist views became compelling to me from the analogy between the state's governance and the governance of the firm. The contrast between the (officially) democratic nature of the state and the complete autocracy of private companies worried me. I was initially a market abolitionist when I become an anti-capitalist, but I found no sound explanation for how such an economy would work.

Now I am a pro-market anti-capitalist, an unusual position on the left

End-to-end encryption is my favorite technology.

- Prevents those with power from spying on everyone and ossifying their power

- Protects communications from smaller scale malicious actors

Capitalism has 3 main features:
- Private property (even in land)
- Employer-employee relationships
- Markets

Capitalism is misnamed. Early theorists mistakenly identified capital ownership as the root feature that gave the employer the right to the whole product that workers produce. The employment contract gives the employer the right to the whole product of the firm. Coops correct this. Power leads to employers typically being capital owners, which is why the misnomer stuck. @asklemmy

When it is a buyer that has excessive market power it can be called monopsony or oligopsony.

This is framing things in terms of the pie metaphor that economists use. While that metaphor is accurate as a metaphor, it obfuscates the issues in discussions of anti-capitalism. The discussion should be about property not value. The workers in the firm don't jointly get ownership of what they produce. Instead, the employer has sole ownership violating the moral basis of property rights

No involuntary impositions of power and authority is the centrist position. The anarchist position should be no impositions of power and authority even if they are voluntary. A perfect example of voluntary power and authority is wage labor. By any usable standard, wage labor is voluntary. Anarchists should object to wage labor because it involves a hierarchy of alienation. This violates workers' inalienable rights, which are rights that can't be given up even with consent

I was in a similar boat with respect to Marxism and anarchism.

My own intuition that something was wrong with capitalism became clearer to me when I read David Ellerman's work on the labor theory of property (Note: not value) and the theory of inalienable rights. His argument is one of the most powerful arguments in favor of workers' self-management, can answer many common criticisms and has a clear vision.

Here is a short article on PBS that introduces his argument: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies

Truth and falsehood can overlap. In other words, that contradictions can be true. The reason for this is paradoxes like the liar's paradox. The sentence, "this sentence is false," is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Building on that, mathematics made the wrong choice philosophically when they modified the axioms of set theory instead of changing the logic in which it was embedded and keeping naive comprehension and extensionality

Classical liberal principles like the principle that legal responsibility should be assigned in accordance with de facto responsibility actually philosophically imply anti-capitalist workplace democracy, and are not philosophically consistent with wage labor. Classical liberalism needs to return to its spot on the left

The workers do produce sprockets and are jointly de facto responsible for them. A group is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their joint intentional actions. Responsibility cannot be cut off like this just like it cannot be cut off at the trigger pull and ignore the resulting crime. The sprockets are a purposeful result.

Selling labor is different. I can transfer capital and the person can use it independently of me, but I can't do so with myself @asklemmy

Shitty bosses are probably less likely if your boss is ultimately democratically accountable to you and not to the some alien legal party that is your employer

While the universe is indifferent because it is not conscious, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that there is a pattern to the goals that rational minds that can exist in this universe find attractive.This pattern would be an objective structure to morality and arguably would qualify as an inherent purpose to the universe

There are examples of it working with worker coops and some ESOPs that are more democratic.

Workers can jointly delegate to corporate leadership. Worker democracy doesn't mean that every decision is put to a vote. The decision-makers just have to be accountable to the workers not to some alien legal party.

The workers are de facto responsible for production. By the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching, the workers should get the whole product

See: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

If given a choice between democratically elected politicians and unaccountable dictators and autocrats, I would choose politicians.

By capitalism, I mean specific institutions. I have specific solutions in mind such as recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy, and common ownership of land, natural resources, and the means of production.

Land's inelastic supply, which can only be solved by socializing it, plays a role in housing costs.

Work issues remain unsolved by those two

I wish there were more philosophy related communities

There are ideologies that believe control rights over firms belong to the workers in those firms. In these ideologies, the control rights can't be given up or transferred even with consent from the workers in the firm i.e. are inalienable. Neoliberalism specifically endorses the alienability control rights over firms. The non-democratic nature of the firm under neoliberal capitalism creates a class used to democratically unaccountable power

The anti-capitalist left should steal the term classical liberal from them: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Article-from-ReclaimingLiberalismEbook.pdf

Capital is causally efficacious in workers use of it. However, capital is a dead tool. It cannot be de facto responsible for anything. The person that uses the capital is the one that is de facto responsible for what they do with it positive and negative. Your assumption that critics of capitalism are merely criticizing improper application of fundamentally sound principles is wrong. The sophisticated critiques of capitalism apply even in its "perfect" form found in econ 101 textbooks @asklemmy

What allows capitalism to scale is markets. Non-capitalist systems can have markets as well

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching

Being in favor of private property and private incentive does not even necessarily mean that you are pro-capitalism. Capitalism as the term is used has three defining features:
- Markets
- Private property
- Employer-employee relationship
One could have a non-capitalist economy that replaced the last one with democratic membership in the firm and still kept the other two features such as a market economy consisting of worker coops

Abolishing slavery did not prevent people from acting in a manner they wished. It prevented them from having the lack of rights of a slave. Similarly, preventing people from being wage laborers just means that that working in a firm would automatically confer voting rights over the firm and make management democratically accountable to the people that work in the firm

Here, worker coop means a worker-controlled firm. A specific legal entity in the current legal system is not meant. Forming a democratic firm without jeopardizing personal assets is possible.

Labor is inalienable. De facto transfers of labor that make de facto and legal responsibility align in the employment contract do not exist. Thus, this does not rule out any de facto transfers in any situation just changes legal overlay.

Can
- Own land with 100% land value tax
- Resell
@asklemmy

A more morally forceful way to say this is labor is de facto responsible for all production. In other words, labor is responsible for creating the whole product, which has value. By the usual moral norm, legal responsibility should match de facto responsibility. The workers should legally get what they produce

Not defining the term. I am using the term how it is used. I hate to appeal to wikipedia, but they include wage labor in capitalism's central characteristics.
Happy to call economic democracy a variant of capitalism depending on the audience. It is odd tho with labor having a special role.
The difference from capitalism is the right to worker coop is inalienable in economic democracy, so working in a firm automatically grants control rights.
I am not a socialist, so cannot comment there

By democratic membership in the firm, I mean just the workers in the firm being members not the entire society because the workers in the firm are governed by management. Worker coops do not prevents individuals from owning private property in the means of production. In a worker coop, the whole product of the firm is joint property of the workers in the firm, but this is ironically necessary for private property's moral basis, which is getting the fruits of your labor

I am curious if you would consider my position to be capitalism.

The market economy I advocate legally protects an inalienable right to workplace democracy just like what some countries have today with political democracy. The employer-employee contract is legally recognized as invalid, so all firms are worker coops. While there is a fruits-of-labor-based claim to products of labor, products of nature there is no such claim, so there is common ownership of natural resources
@asklemmy

While this is sort of a tax, it also has elements of common ownership because it reduces the exclusion power of capital owners due to the mandated transfer. A worker coop that has the funds can take the capital and use it in production. They do not have to negotiate to buy the property. The problem with other rules is that they will have loopholes that the rich will exploit. The revenue can be used to fund a basic income. The entity that receives the revenue can be non-state.

Being a pro-market libertarian left anti-capitalist is not respected. Pro-capitalists basically view this as anti-market communism. The left sees you as personally defending every bad aspect of capitalism despite your opposition to capitalist appropriation, monopolistic aspects of private property and privatization of natural resources. Historically, this position was prominent with examples including Proudhon and the classical laborists

Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?

What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn't prevent all malicious traffic

I disagree that the 2 options are the only ones available. We could have a funding system with aspects of quadratic funding and artistic freedom vouchers, which allows the organizations developing the software to remain private organizations. Quadratic funding is basically a public matching fund for contributions to public goods such as OSS with a special matching formula that matches small contributions from many sponsors at a higher rater than more concentrated ones

I agree with most of your points except the points about worker democracy. Being able to exit is not the same as having voice and exit, which is what worker democracy involves. The employer is not a workers' delegate. Their managers manage the firm in the employer's name. The employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm. The workers are de facto responsible for creating the product. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match

Not all anti-capitalist ideologies are like that. Some of them have a clear vision of what to build: workplace democracy, social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of land and natural resources

Climate change can be addressed with common ownership of natural resources, which would include carbon tax policy.

Why does AI create a need for a planned economy?

In terms of what is possible, we could also use non-market mechanisms such as quadratic funding to allocate resources towards public goods that are available to each according to need. These mechanisms combine the egalitarianism of democracy with the flexibility that markets provide.

Another cool Gerogism-inspired policy is common ownership self-assessed tax (COST), which can be used to collectivize the means of production while maintaining decentralized control of it.

In terms of direct action, we should just starting building postcapitalism now with venture communes of worker coops, and implement policies we want in the venture communes. This would even help with reformism because it would bring economic power to the movement, which could be turned into political power