The ideology is often implicit in how the model is explained. For example, 2 simple facts that go unmentioned.

1. Only persons can be responsible for anything. Things, no matter how causally efficacious, can’t be responsible for what is done with them
2. The employer receives 100% of the property rights for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The workers qua employees get 0% legal claim on that. This fact is obfuscated using the pie metaphor

@science_memes

Marx ≠ anti-capitalism

There are other modern anti-capitalist argument derived from the classical laborists such as Proudhon.

Markets ≠ capitalism

In postcapitalism, we can use markets where appropriate. We have practical examples of non-capitalist firms with worker coops and 100% ESOPs.

There are theoretical mechanisms for collective ownership that can be shown to be efficient like COST.

There are theoretical non-market democratic public goods funding mechanisms

@science_memes

Economics treats metaphors as deep truths while treating simple facts as superficial. An example of this is in presentations of MP theory where the pie metaphor is emphasized while the actual structure of property rights and liabilities is ignored and obfuscated @sciencememes

Sure, in theory, that is what it should be about. In practice, many economists bias the theories they develop to make sure the conclude in favor of their own ideological biases. Often, metaphors are treated as deep truths while simple facts are treated as superficial and ignored or even obfuscated due to their ideological implications if they were plainly stated @sciencememes

I have a specific theory of rights in mind. This theory of rights proposes worker coops as the only rights respecting way of organizing labor relations based on the inalienability of responsibility. I’m not using rights in a general vague sense to refer to harm.

Worker coops view workers differently than capitalist firms. They see labor as a fixed factor e.g. worker coops cut wages not jobs during economic, downturns.

The theory of rights I have in mind can fit in a license @programming

Far left as in explicit restrictions on capitalist firms using the software without paying for it while still allowing full software freedom for worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.

Copyfarleft should set up a whole family of licenses of varying strengths and its own alternative ideology from the FSF. The first principle is an almost complete rejection of permissive open source licenses as enabling capitalist free riding @programming

If you look at property rights, the contrast is even stronger. The employer owns 100% of the property rights to the produced outputs and owes 100% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs. Meanwhile, workers qua employee receive 0% of both. This is despite their joint de facto responsibility for producing those results violating the basic principle of justice.

We need to move towards a copyfarleft model that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft

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

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

I’m familiar. What I am saying is that the subjective theory of value is correct, but that doesn’t mean some sort of labor theory doesn’t hold. The labor theory of property (LTP) holds. Think Proudhon and the classical laborists and less Marx @whitepeopletwitter

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

Labor isn’t the source of value. Labor is the source of the whole product, which is what has value, of the firm. Labor is de facto responsible for what is created in production. The employing class is quite literally stealing from workers through their appropriation of the property rights to the produced outputs and the liabilities for the used-up inputs, which together make up the whole product . This appropriation implies a mismatch between legal and de facto responsibility @whitepeopletwitter

The left isn’t necessarily opposed to ownership or freedom to trade. Nor is capitalism just freedom to trade. Capitalism is a set of exploitative property relations based on a fake contract (the employer-employee contract). In this contract, the legal responsibility for the entire result of production is assigned to the employer despite the workers’ joint de facto responsibility for that result. This violates the basic tenet that legal and de facto responsibility match