An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
How can this be a rejection of the far left when Harris campaigned as a moderate (e.g. Cheney)? If republican voters are going to think Democrats are communist regardless of how moderate the Democrats are, maybe moderating isn’t a good strategy. If the only choice is between right-wing and lite right-wing, right-wing voters will choose the real thing. Even then, Trumpists will still call democrats communists.
Many left polices are popular when they aren’t labelled as left
Thanks for the feedback. Will try to keep that in mind when coming up with post titles
I have never found a meme that suitably emphasizes the responsibility aspect. Responsibility plays an essential role in the underlying argument due to the peculiarity that responsibility can’t be transferred from person to person even with consent. You find memes about workers deserving the entire value of their labor, but none that emphasize responsibility and workers’ property rights to the literal produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs rather than just their value
The entire video isn’t required to understand the argument. The first 15 minutes are sufficient
This argument probably can be explained in a 4 panel comic.
Probably, something like:
1 side: an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime, which results in both being held responsible
Other side: an employer and employee cooperating to produce a widget resulting in the employer solely appropriating 100% of the property rights to the widget and liabilities for used-up inputs
A variant of this should replace non-profit tax exemptions and all campaign finance rules.
The way to prevent bribing is secret and anonymous contributions. You could, for example, imagine including these contributions to your favorite media and FOSS organizations as part of your ballot.
This could be implemented by a federation of worker coops to fund local public goods that all the member coops benefit from with the matching pool coming from membership fees and Harberger leases
Classical laborists and mutualists were anti-capitalists. Some of whom predated Marx.
As I said, a mutualist economy or economic democracy has never existed. The modern arguments for economic democracy were first published in a book released in the 1990s. However, we have plenty of examples of worker coops and employee-owned corporations working well under capitalism. An economic democracy or mutualism differs from capitalism in that all firms are mandated to be worker coops
I know what capitalism is. My analysis of capitalism comes from a mutualist perspective and is inspired by the classical laborists rather than Marx
There has never been a worker-cooperative-dominated market economy, but actually existing worker coops and employee-owned corporations don’t seem to create billionaires, and have more equitable distribution of wages.
Why does mandating all firms to be worker coops not abolish capitalism in your view?
It seems to me that they’re hinting at abolishing capitalism.
One way to do that would be to
Mandate worker coop structure on all businesses
Institute a 100% land value tax
Taxing the rich doesn’t really solve the root of the problem. Abolishing capitalism pre-distributes wealth so that people don’t become billionaires in the first place. 100% land value tax encourages efficient use of land.
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/
“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.
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
Rent control is bad policy
https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/446/087/286/939/418/original/cd5415118403b574.png
@theonion