A simple argument shows that capitalism is theft and workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy - 35 minute video

“David Ellerman: Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons”

https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

The talk argues that employment contract is invalid due to inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up even with consent. Workers’ inalienable rights are rooted in their joint de facto responsibility for all production in the firm

@solarpunk

  • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you’re not liable – doesn’t matter; you can’t choose to be “not liable”. When you commit not-crime for an employer, the consequences (the payment/income from that work) are given entirely to the employer; they are treated as if they were 100% responsible/liable. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.

    The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can’t have “its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime”.

    • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Its worth mentioning: workers would also be liable for company failure; but that actually might be one of the best parts of this idea.

      See, right now you can get hired to run a company, drive it straight into the ground with stupid decisions, get paid the whole time, and then leave the now-bankrupted company with no downside for yourself. That would no longer be allowed if you were held responsible for the company at a personal level.