• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Capitalism’s critics focus on its labor relations.

    Not wanting responsibility is irrelevant as there is no de facto action they can take that transfers de facto responsibility (DFR) to be solely the employer’s.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-do-americans-want-from-private-government-experimental-evidence-demonstrates-that-americans-want-workplace-democracy/D9C1DBB6F95D9EEA35A34ABF016511F4

    There is no moral reason for the last legal owner of the inputs to “swallow” the “cost” rather than the party DFR for using them up compensating them. Execs r workers here. R u saying that workers aren’t responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?

    @technology

    • sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, critics of capitalism focus on labor relations, which is where the Marxist labor theory of value comes from. I honestly reject the LTV because it completely eliminates the reward for risk-taking. Why should you create a new thing that may or may not work out if the most you can get from it is the amount of labor you put in? That’s like gambling for a 5% return when you can get a guaranteed 5% return from your bank, it’s irrational.

      In capitalism, the price of a good will eventually trend toward the cost to produce it, after a period of outsized returns by being first to market. So innovation is rewarded through higher margins, then competition comes in and creates a race to the bottom until the next innovation comes out.

      The main problem being solved here has little to do with capitalism itself, but with cronyism. Capitalists want high margins, and there are two ways to get that:

      • rent seeking - if a capitalist can get a monopoly, they can control their margins since nobody can undercut them
      • innovation - continually produce new products with high margins and cash in before anyone undercuts you

      The first is way easier than the second since it requires almost no ongoing work, other than maybe sharing profits with a few influential politicians. But that’s not a problem with capitalism, which is a pure dog-eat-dog system. Socialists and others on the far left attack this amalgamation of systems and call the whole thing “capitalism,” when really capitalism is intended to be a completely separate system from the state (unlike socialism, which is most often combined with the state).

      R u saying that workers aren’t responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?

      I’m saying the one responsible is the one with the motive.

      In most cases, it’s either the capital owner or the executive team that should be taking responsibility for these decisions. They’re the ones cutting funding for safety equipment, replacing materials with cheaper alternatives, etc. Or maybe it’s a middle manager who is trying to look good for a promotion. Whoever made the decision in full knowledge of it being a potential problem is the one at fault, and that’s almost never the worker.

      Execs are usually not workers, they’re the ones in control of the capital. Some execs are, but most don’t produce any of the goods, they merely orchestrate it. In other words, in most cases, there needs to be mens rea, mere proof that a criminal act was committed is rarely sufficient (e.g. most courts would acquit if a reasonable person would assume their actions were legal). In a capitalist system, it’s usually the owners of capital that have motive, the workers just want to get through the day and collect their paycheck and saving the company a few dollars by using sub-standard parts has almost no upside to the average worker.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I reject the Marxist LTV too. The theory I have described is the labor theory of property (LTP) that workers in the firm should jointly own the produced outputs and be liable for the used-up inputs. Workers and non-voting preferred shareholders are duly compensated.

        The pure application of the tenet of legal responsibility and de facto responsibility matching is to deliberate and intentional joint actions. The actions of workers in production are premeditated and deliberate.

        @technology

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Orchestration is labor here. Execs are workers as far as the labor theory of property is concerned. I agree that regulatory capture is a problem. I have not mentioned the state here tho. Anti-capitalists work with the historical definition of capitalism.

          Also, going back to stability, coops provide stable jobs because they take labor force as a fixed factor and during a downturn they prefer cutting pay over cutting some jobs to maintain the pay of others’ jobs

          @technology