• J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not the same thing. If workers need a factory to produce trains, they can either (1) rent the factory or (2) the factory owner can hire them. In case 1, the workers retain ownership over the produced trains (fruits of their labor). In case 2, the employer owns the produced trains.

    Private property in land is different, and should involve common ownership.

    A distinction exists between positive and negative control rights. Property only confers the latter, which can be weakened

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the owner decides he doesn’t wind up with enough of the value of producing the trains, he can kick out the train builders.

      Same thing.

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The train builders can go somewhere else collectively under this system.

        Property norms can be set up so that the buyer can compel a sale. This would work by having a community digital ledger that keeps track of property claims. The owner would state the price at which they would be willing to part with the property, and they would pay a percentage fee on that price into a common fund. Anyone that paid that price would get the property even if the owner objected @anarchism

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          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 Lou@mastodon.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 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 Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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

                • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  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 Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The land itself will be owned by the land trust, but the value derived from improvements on top of the land will belong to the worker coop that made the factory. The idea is that, while the products of nature are not the fruits of anyone’s labor, using them up in production is part of the negative fruits of labor of the workers that use them up.