this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
67 points (93.5% liked)

Socialism

5140 readers
1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

~~Nice title which suggests you have absolutely no idea what liberal means (in this or any other context) and you thought this was an attack against liberals.~~

Update:

I made a mistake. I didn't notice the actual community name and had a knee-jerk reaction to the subject as an attack on "liberals" as is commonly used when talking about politics in the U.S.

In review, I see that you are having a more intellectual conversation and I should have taken more time to see that in the first place. Apologies.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

We do know what “liberal” means. Here is very first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

By “private property,” what is meant is “the means of production.” Liberalism is the philosophy of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as the capitalist class.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Private property rests on the principle of people getting the fruits of their labor. In other words, private property appropriation has a labor-basis that capitalism denies. Capitalism violates the very principle behind private property by giving workers 0% joint claim on the positive and negative fruits of their labor

"Property is theft!" -- Proudhon

The employment contract is what really enables capitalist appropriation.

I agree with your critique of capitalist liberal democracy

@socialism

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)