Why capitalism is theft even if it is voluntary and consensual, and a case for universal worker democracy
“Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons”
The talk argues that capitalism is invalid on the basis of the theory of inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up or transferred even with consent. Capitalist apologists often appeal to contractual consent to defend the system, so this changes the debate
The link argues that uber drivers are employees.
The no employee factory as described sounds fine. Ellerman’s philosophy doesn’t just imply a worker coop mandate. Since natural resources aren’t the fruits of anyone’s labor and the equal claim to them of future generations, we should apply common ownership arrangements to land and natural resources and artificial monopolies.
Neo-abolition doesn’t solve every problem.
Social ownership of capital is orthogonal policy issue
@latestagecapitalism
So for the Uber case we’d expect a worker coop app owned by the drivers? That makes sense to me.
My dad drives for Uber Eats and one of the issues for him is that there are too many drivers with not enough demand a lot of the time. He ends up spending a lot of time sitting around waiting for orders to come in.
I think in a worker coop model you’d probably see a restriction in the number of drivers in an area. But then you could also see competing apps show up.
I’m really not sure what would happen!