Is there any evidence to support the claim that ultra-progressives caused Harris to lose?
jlou
joined 2 years ago
If the Republicans are going to call the Democrats communists and socialist regardless of how moderate a campaign Democrats run, Democrats might as well lean further left on economic policy. Appealing to the right does nothing because the right can appeal to the right better than the center-left can
Any company that receives government subsidies or is bailed out because it's too big too fail or whatever the reason should be mandated to become a worker coop
The founders can hold more or all non-voting preferred stock in the worker coop to represent their larger stake and investment. They can also use a separate corporation, which only the founders own, with no employees to hold their capital and then lease it the worker coop
It would definitely be easier in an economy where this was the only way of doing things.
I am not a lawyer.
Based on the underlying economic theory and ethical arguments for worker coops/employee-owned companies, what you could do in such a situation is make a separate legal entity for the worker coop, and then lease the assets of the current legal entity to the worker coop. You and your partner maintain exclusive ownership of the original legal entity
Enough of a percentage where you could get the ball rolling on a worker coop conversion, but choose not to.
Musk has 79% voting control over SpaceX.
Employment-based corporation's executives potentially aren't working class.
From a worker coop perspective, managers are working class. However, from a union perspective, management is not working class.
The form matters since some forms are unjust and involve appropriating the positive and negative fruits of other people's labor
The statement being false implies that it is true, which is why this statement is contradictory if there are any omniscient beings
Today's legal systems mandate that legal responsibility be non-transferable for crimes. The economic democracy position argues that legal responsibility should be generally non-transferable matching general non-transferability of de facto responsibility due to the principle of justice that legal and de facto responsibility should match. Not all mandates are authoritarian (e.g. a mandate that one must respect others' personal property). Employment violates workers' property rights
Political democracy also mandates legal non-transferability for voting rights. Would you allow people to sell or transfer their voting rights?
People prefer democratic firms: 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
A mandate doesn't restrict any non-institutionally-described action as labor is de facto non-transferable. It only prevents fraudulently treating de facto responsible persons as legal non-responsible things.
Are we free when we can sell our freedom or when we can't even if we want to?
The idea is to mandate worker coop structure on all firms.
It's not that telling. Without a worker coop mandate, there are collective action problems and market failures. It's harder for all the workers to cooperate to form a worker coop than an employer to hire up all the workers.
No society has a full worker coop mandate because the modern arguments for it were published in the 90s. Some countries do mandate some worker board representation and codetermination though
@canada
The diagram centrists don't want you to see
Centrism frames the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion and argue that capitalism is fine because workers consent in the legal sense to the labor contract. Democratic theory recognizes a distinction among voluntary contracts i.e. consent to alienate vs. consent to delegate. A centrist can't appeal to this distinction because capitalism and political democracy are on opposite sides
The diagram capitalist liberals don't want you to see
Capitalists frame the debate about capitalism as one of consent versus coercion and argue that capitalism is acceptable because workers consent in the legal sense to the employment contract. Democratic theory recognized a further distinction among voluntary contracts i.e. consent to alienate vs. consent to delegate. Capitalists can't appeal to this distinction because capitalism and political democracy are on opposite sides
*Perceived* leftward shift. The Democrats aren't that left wing in the first place. If democrats are going to be perceived as too left wing regardless of reality, they might as well take on some left-wing policies, so they can at least bribe voters with stuff that obviously and immediately makes things better for them like UBI.
If you're suggesting throw LGBTQ people under the bus, that is just wrong. What would we be fighting for at that point?
@politicalmemes