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

    Workers are responsible for creating the output (positive) and using up the inputs including the services of expensive tools (negative). Sure, labor wouldn’t be able to do what they do without invested capital, but this point doesn’t support capitalism. The workers could just as easily jointly work for themselves in a non-capitalist setup with investors still being compensated.

    To sell labor, there must be a transfer of responsibility, but such a procedure is impossible @whitepeopletwitter

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

      workers could just as easily jointly work for themselves in a non-capitalist setup with investors still being compensated.

      They can do exactly that in a capitalist system, it’s called a worker coop and those do exist.

      To sell labor, there must be a transfer of responsibility, but such a procedure is impossible

      What do you mean? When you work for a company, the company takes responsibility for any mistakes you make. If you make a faulty product, customers will sue the company, not you. If you get injured on the job, the company must pay for your recovery. That’s the whole point of a corporate structure.

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

        Sure, alternatives can exist within capitalism, but the problem is that capitalism allows persons to be legally treated as things as well in the employer-employee relationship.

        I am exclusively talking about deliberate actions, and the de facto responsibility that comes with them i.e. the who-did-it sense of responsibility. De facto responsibility can’t be transferred to match the legal responsibility asssignments in the employer-employee contract

        @whitepeopletwitter

        • sugar_in_your_tea
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then I don’t get your point, because it seems to have nothing to do with economic systems and everything to do with human nature (we like to point fingers).

          Are you suggesting consequences would be more socialized with socialism? If so, I don’t think that’s the case, especially if we take the USSR as an example where scapegoats were thrown in the gulags. With capitalism, your immediate consequences are limited to losing your job or perhaps a cool l civil lawsuit since your employer is not allowed to use any form of force against you.

          I don’t think de facto responsibility matters much in capitalism, only de jure responsibility truly matters.

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

            The moral principle is that de jure responsibility should be assigned in accordance with de facto responsibility. Capitalism doesn’t satisfy this principle. That is the problem. The reason I mentioned that de facto responsibility isn’t transferable is that employer-employee contracts inherently involves a transfer of legal responsibility, but there is no way to transfer de facto responsibility to match. Employer-employee contracts are invalid because of this.

            @whitepeopletwitter