• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure, workers can always allegedly “go somewhere else”. You realize that private property and capital accumulation and market distribution have, in actual practice, kept us from doing so very, very effectively, right? Like, there’s one or two large enterprises that are worker-owned and allegedly democratically managed. And even on the local level, co-ops are incredibly difficult to establish. You sound like a fucking propertarian, telling people to “just go somewhere else/start one yourself if you don’t like it.” I’m not sure why you expect anyone to fall for that shit here.

    Are you sure you’re an anarchist and not a liberal? Because you’re working awfully hard to propose market-based solutions in order to seemingly protect private property relations against anyone who might want radical, use-based community ownership.

    • J LouOP
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The difference is that workers can take the entire company with them when they go somewhere else.

      You are confusing the difficulty of establishing a co-op today with the difficulty of establishing a co-op under a system where co-ops are the only firm. The employment contract’s pervasiveness has caused the former. Ellerman advocates abolishing the employment contract and private property in natural resources.

      There have been anarchists that do not oppose markets such as Proudhon

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        There have been anarchists that do not oppose markets such as Proudhon

        They didn’t propose those markets as a way to preserve private property relations for the sake of capitalists, as you are doing.

        And even those anarchists (and socialists more generally) who don’t wholly oppose markets usually want to decrease their influence, especially regarding necessities like food, water, housing, health care, etc. “Here’s how markets will fix that,” is a galaxy-brained thing for any leftist to say at this point in history.

        • J LouOP
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not a market fundamentalist. Common ownership applies to housing (land) and water.

          Capital rental benefits workers. Renting is buying the services of a thing for a period rather than buying the whole thing. Sometimes workers will prefer to buy only the services for a period thus paying less. In value terms, there is no difference between renting and owning because
          capital’s price = future rentals’ discounted present value

          Such transactions would be with worker coops on both ends

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Capital rental benefits workers.

            Wrong. Capital rental benefits the capitalist (e.g. the landlord).

            Renting is buying…

            Wrong. Weird, dumb misunderstanding that you are really irrationally obsessed with right now, and already explained. Rent is an exploitative property relation, that leaves the owner with ultimate power. If the dictator doesn’t like you for any reason including that you don’t follow his every edict (easily the equivalent of that “employment contract” you’re so worried about), he terminates (e.g. evicts you). And I’m not sure why you keep putting @anarchism at the end of your comments, because you aren’t advocating for it. You’re just advocating for a property-based hierarchy with a different flavor.

            Okay. Done with this exchange, and won’t be replying further. Take care.

            • J LouOP
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You haven’t been listening to what I have been saying. I am explicitly excluding land. We both agree that land should be commonly owned. With capital (as in equipment and machinery), if the party you’re renting from has a condition you don’t like for use of their capital, you can compel a sale at their self-assessed price in the scheme I mentioned. This eliminates the monopoly power associated with capital ownership. Thus, it confers no hierarchical authority to the owner