Comment

Comment on Bethesda Game Studios workers have unionized

The issue arises with the workers as labor performers. The employees are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but get 0% of property and liabilities for the results of production. Instead, the employer has 100% sole legal responsibility.

That’s true, but cooperatives can legally exist where workers share those.

It’s rather that dynamic of power makes bad behavior advantageous, but what would change this in “simple” anarchism?

Ancaps imagine aiming for maximal granularity and variability, so that the same kind of abusive behavior wouldn’t fit all cases and rules’ combinations (same as with epidemics) and there’d be market mechanisms functioning due to scale (things generally look better when there are, say, 100 microsofts instead of 1). They assume that those variability and granularity won’t be reduced through open violence (conquering of subduing jurisdictions with differing rules on something) and enforcement of monopolies (trademarks, patents, licenses and such), because of everybody being armed to the teeth and usually there’s still assumed some centralized state which will keep the situation from coming to open violence.

In case of “simple” anarchism I see contempt for ancap concepts of solving this, but what are the alternatives?

No anwer is too stupid for me, even new genetically altered humans (I’ve literally encountered an opinion that an anarchist society may require this to make humanity more empathetic, LOL).

Individuals are the basic entity. Groups’ rules vary

This doesn’t seem to be different from ancap+panarchy when described so abstractly.

source

Sort:hotnew top

jlou@mastodon.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Cooperatives existing doesn't solve the problem as it doesn't address the violation of inalienable rights in all non-coop firms. Consent doesn't transfer responsibility. The solution is to abolish the employment contract and secure universal self-employment as in a worker coop.
Markets have a place, but non-market mechanisms and mutual aid should flourish within groups. Ancaps see the logic of exit, but ignore the dual logic of commitment and voice e.g. democracy and social property
@technology
source
- rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility.
  
  I agree.
  
  Ancaps see the logic of exit, but ignore the dual logic of commitment and voice e.g. democracy and social property
  
  Ancaps delegate this to free will.
  
  Including
  
  … but non-market mechanisms and mutual aid should flourish within groups.
  
  Only how do you form a group with its resources without property of individuals as its components?
  
  source
  - jlou@mastodon.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers' inalienable right to workplace democracy?
    The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds @technology
    source
    rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy?
    
    No, just that you can’t offload responsibility via contract. I agree though that contract under clear pressure is negligible.
    
    The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds
    
    So a group can make the fee zero and thus have a usual ancap community?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments