• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This perfectly describes capitalism. The workers are factually responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. The workers build the positive and negative product, but the employer has sole ownership of the produced outputs and holds the liabilities for the used-up inputs. The workers produce the whole product but are denied the legal rights to it under capitalism

    @microblogmemes

    • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The difference is that in capitalism, you are compensated for your labour in a different way, with wages. That is sufficient motivation to be productive. It does not make a difference in that regard who owns the final product.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It matters who owns the final product. The owner is the party the legal system is holding responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. There is a tenet that who the legal system holds responsible for a result should match who actually is factually responsible for the result. Capitalism systematically violates this principle. Property rights rest on people having the right to get the positive and negative fruits of their labor. Capitalism also fails there

        • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Who says this principle exists and who says we need to adhere to it? I don’t see what benefit that would bring.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            An intuition pump for this tenet is the case where an employer and employee cooperate to commit a crime and get caught. Both the employer and employee are held legally responsible for the crime. The servant in work becomes a partner in crime. The employee can’t argue that they sold their labor so whatever was done with their labor is not their responsibility. The law already applies this tenet. It just fails to apply it in the firm.

            What do you mean by benefit?

            • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say, so let me rephrase the question. What exactly would have to change to adhere to this tenet, and why would that benefit society?

              • J Lou@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                To adhere to this tenet, all firms would have to be structured as democratic worker coops. This would benefit society by making it more just. The basic idea of a miscarriage of justice is when someone else is held legally responsible for the deeds of another party such as when one party cooperates to commit a crime and another innocent party is held guilty of it. The employer-employee contract varies in degree, but it is also a miscarriage of justice.

                What do you mean by benefit?