🇳🇱
@jeffowski Good post, not related to billionairs, but otherwise a good post I wish more people understood.
You can't have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
You can't have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
You can't have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
Therefore billionaires imply homelessness.
Wrong on literally all accounts…
You can’t have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.
Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society.
You can’t have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing.
You can’t have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).
@freemo @jeffowski Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.
Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.
If there's no homelessness then the commons aren't enclosed. Again the argument is historical. There has never been an economy with enclosed commons that failed to have homelessness.
> Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.
Again, wrong. You only need money, not capitalism, for billionairs.
> Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.
Either you really dont understand what enclosure of the commons means or you dont understand what capitalism means.
For starters there has never been **any** form of government that didnt have some degree of enclosure of the commons, capitalism or otherwise.
Second even if you didnt have a closer of the common, you'd still need a labour force. In fact the idea that you wouldnt seems highly ignorant of even the most basic considerations, as if access to land were the only reason people work.
@freemo @jeffowski Great. Why don't you tell me what you think capitalism is. Tell me in a way that shows that Soviet Russia was not capitalist
Why don't you tell me what enclosure of the commons is, then. Also, the fact that non-capitalists may enclose the commons is irrelevant. I'm only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.
I shouldnt need to tell you, these terms are well defined. So it isnt something I or you get to have an opinion on.
Capitalism is where both the means and distribution of production can be privately owned, and free-markets are enforced.
There is of course some room for interpritation of what “free market” means, but generally its accepted as either unregulated, or regulated to ensure all players have equal opportunity in negotiating trade.
Since soviet russia had the means of production as state-owned it is not by definition a capitalism.
I’m only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.
Still not true by the definition of capitalism. It is enclosed in all societies to some degree whether capitalist or not because it is a good thing for society, something we generally all agree on. But no there is nothing inherent about capitalism that would require it. Land ownership is not a requirement of capitalism by definition.
@freemo @jeffowski
3 defining aspects of capitalism
1. Private ownership
2. Employer-employee relationships
3. Markets
This is just a general definition based on how people use the term informed by historical criticisms.
What is seen as capitalism will still depend on the particular analysis of capitalism. An analysis focused on workplace democracy would not see the Soviet Union as non-capitalist because it did not have universal workers' self-management
I prefer to stick with the accepted definition than to try to make up our own.
Employer-employee relationship is not remotely unique to capitalism, and markets in general can exist in non-capitalist countries, it is not wholly unique to capitalism. what defines capitalism is **free** market, not simply having a market. Even private ownership is only capitalism when it is private ownership of the means of production. Being able to own a pocket watch doesnt make something capitalist.
@freemo @jeffowski I meant ownership of the means of production.
Employer-employee relationship is definitely a defining element of capitalism. Many critics of capitalism such as the classical laborists centered their criticism on wage labor (employer-employee relationship). Many of the modern critiques of capitalism center on workplace authoritarianism and the distribution of a firm's whole product.
Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?
Employer-employee relationships is the norm in both capitalist and non-capitalist society. You still have jobs in non-capitalist economies and if you have a job there is an employee employer relationship. It just so happens sometimes the employer is the government or a co-op.
Thats not in line with any of the normal language used. Someone owning the companyt hey work for along side other people doesnt stop that entity from being an employer.
All the companies I run have a stock-options program where my employees are part owners int he company. Despite the fact that they are owners there is still the same employee-employer relationship.
@freemo @jeffowski Stock options are different from the kind of control rights one gets in a worker coop because they are attached to the functional role of working in the firm. You can still get stock options in a worker coop as non-voting preferred shares
The classical laborists were critiquing was having an alien legal party appropriate the positive and negative product that workers are de facto responsible for. I don't think the language we use is relevant to the theory
Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?
It may be, it may not. As long as people have the options to privately own means of production, then its capitalism. If no one exercised that right and everyone choose to only operate as co-ops as long as they have the option then it is still capitalism.
@freemo @jeffowski There is a misunderstanding of how the property and contract system works here. Capital ownership does not determine firmhood. The employer gets those rights in the employer-employee contract. Capital only increases bargaining power to get favorable market contracts.
Workplace democracy is actually compatible with private ownership of the means of production. A worker coop can rent capital.
In such an economy, the employment contract is abolished
Exactly, co-op based systems are still entierly allowed within capitalist system, but there is still an employee-employer relationship even if you are part of a co-op.
@freemo @jeffowski If the employed and employing legal party is the same, it is reasonable to think of that as joint self-employment.
I will use the terminology the way you do.
In an economic democracy, workers' inalienable right to workplace democracy and to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor is recognized. A right is inalienable when it cannot be given up even with consent. In an economic democracy, there is no legal mechanism for creating a non-democratic firm
> If the employed and employing legal party is the same, it is reasonable to think of that as joint self-employment
Its not the same in a co-op.. The employed is you, as an individual. The employee is a large collection of people of whom you are only a small voice. Sure if you are the sole owner and employed you could make that argument. But in a co-op the collective is hardlyt he same as the individual. So you still have a employeer (the whole governing body) and the employed (you) in a relationship you may or may not like.
@freemo @jeffowski The terminology isn't that important.
In the democratic worker coop economy, I mentioned there is no way to create a non-democratic non-coop firm. Would you consider such a system capitalism where it isn't possible to have someone work in a company without getting control rights over management?
@freemo @jeffowski Nah a democratic worker coop is joint self-employment not employer-employee relationship