An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
Remember: anti-capitalism ≠ socialism
Democratic worker co-ops are postcapitalist, but are also non-socialist because they are perfectly compatible with markets and private property. I’m suggesting that Sanders is authentically anti-capitalist, but he conflates his anti-capitalism with being socialist in a category error and thus buys into a false dichotomy.
All firms must be legally mandated to be worker coops on classical liberal inalienable rights theory grounds
I agree that giving alienable voting shares to workers isn’t anti-capitalist. It becomes anti-capitalist when the voting rights over management and corporate governance are inalienable meaning they are legally recognized as non-transferable even with consent.
Here is a talk by people involved with Bernie Sanders politically about how all companies should be democratically controlled by the workers: https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5/_ZE
Sanders supports worker co-op conversions
Instead, we should implement new mechanisms for funding public goods like news such as quadratic finance. Quadratic finance is a non-market mechanism that enables a decentralized ecosystem of self-organizing public goods producers such as newsrooms. It overcomes the collective action problem of donation-based models by considering the number of people contributing as well as the amount of money contributed. Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding
I agree he is not a socialist in the 20th century sense, but he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment. He advocates for employee ownership of companies. I also am aware of who his economic advisors on these issues are and they are very much anti-capitalist
Bernie Sanders is a proper anti-capitalist not just social democratic capitalist. See: https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
Counter-example to your claim of non-existence of anti-capitalist liberalism: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Classical-Liberal-JurisprudenceJune2018.pdf
Software companies usually form as worker coops directly rather than using an ESOP mechanim
Here is a list worker coops: https://www.usworker.coop/directory/
There are some software companies in there under technology
Worker coops can delegate decision-making to managers and executives. This can ensure speedy decision-making. Having workers control the firm doesn’t mean that every decision must be made by referendum. There can be delegation and more representative democracy
Liberalism refers to both a coherent political philosophy and a historical political tendency. The former liberalism is anti-capitalist. Yes many historical liberals were pro-capitalism, but this position makes their liberalism incoherent.
Private property rests on the principle that workers have an inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. Capitalism violates this norm. Locke was wrong
A market economy of worker coops isn’t socialism
There are anti-capitalist liberals though
At its core, liberalism is fairly anti-capitalist. There are many arguments against capitalism from liberal principles such as the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. The workers in the firm are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but receive 0% claim on the positive and negative production while the employer solely appropriates 100% of the positive and negative result of production
It gets even more confusing when you consider anti-capitalist classical liberals
https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Classical-Liberal-JurisprudenceJune2018.pdf
Worker cooperatives don’t have to have a flat structure. Smaller cooperatives might use a flat structure, but larger companies will delegate business decisions to management. The main difference is that the board of directors represent the workers instead of outside shareholders making it democratic
deleted by creator
The coin flip is inherently part of policy, and it is bad policy to decide on policies with a coin flip
Inalienable rights are moral rights that can’t be given up or transferred. It doesn’t mean that the legal system can’t fail to enforce the right such as by legally treating it as alienable like capitalism does in the employment contract. If the legal system doesn’t grant it, that’s a bad legal system.
Moral concepts have an objective sense that is unknowable.
You can’t get good policy without democracy because democracy is part of all good policy. Non-democracy violates inalienable rights, which makes it inherently bad policy
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
I did my part in trying to elect Harris.
What is the point in moderating if even after moderating Democrats are perceived as too left-wing?
*Perceived* leftward shift. The Democrats aren’t that left wing in the first place. If democrats are going to be perceived as too left wing regardless of reality, they might as well take on some left-wing policies, so they can at least bribe voters with stuff that obviously and immediately makes things better for them like UBI.
If you’re suggesting throw LGBTQ people under the bus, that is just wrong. What would we be fighting for at that point?
Popular, here, isn’t meant in an ad and attention grabbing sense.
With quadratic funding, people make voluntary contributions to newsrooms they like. The government matches these contributions using a neutral formula that results in newsrooms that receive small contributions from many people receiving a greater level of funding than those supported by small number of wealthy people. The fear mongering and bias can be avoided by allowing citizens to make negative contributions
@canada