• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Private property isn’t as supportive of capitalism as it initially seems. Classical laborists (e.g. Proudhon) and their modern intellectual descendants (e.g. David Ellerman) argue that the positive and negative results of production are the private property of the workers in the firm. This argument immediately implies a worker coop structure mandate on all firms and rules out capitalism. Capitalism is so indefensible that even private property requires the abolition of capitalism

    @socialism

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Private property isn’t as supportive of capitalism as it initially seems.

      Private property is the very foundation of capitalism. The capitalist class owns the means of production, and the working class must sell the only thing it can—its labor—to survive.

      Classical laborists (e.g. Proudhon) and their modern intellectual descendants (e.g. David Ellerman) argue that the positive and negative results of production are the private property of the workers in the firm.

      They can argue that all they like, but the facts on the ground are that the capitalists own the private property, and the state enforces that ownership though its monopoly on violence. It’s a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, usually in the form of bourgeois democracy, and occasionally, in times of crisis, in the form of fascism.