The diagram centrists don’t want you to see
Centrism frames the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion and argue that capitalism is fine because workers consent in the legal sense to the labor contract. Democratic theory recognizes a distinction among voluntary contracts i.e. consent to alienate vs. consent to delegate. A centrist can’t appeal to this distinction because capitalism and political democracy are on opposite sides
Way to make a strawmen!
Find some way to make workplace democracy to work and almost the entire population of the world will support you. Until then that’s just like those people that keep claiming that physicists are censoring their pet theory.
Not a strawman. There are tons of examples of framing the capitalism issue in terms of consent vs coercion. Nozick talks about capitalist acts between consenting adults etc.
Many worker coops and majority employee-owned ESOPs exist today. It works.
Democratic theory argues that contracts based on consent to alienate are inherently invalid. Since the employment system is on the “wrong” side, the original theory invalidating these contracts is ignored and forgotten
The only thing “capitalistic” about a job contract is that you are able to abandon it at any time and get another one. Besides, the fact that capitalism only work between consenting adults doesn’t mean it only happens this way. This is one of the largest reasons we got big governments on the 20th century, to make sure rich people don’t break everything down.
Again, you’ll only find people that disagree with that on those “economy cults” that insist on radicalizing people into nonsense.
Also, worker coops only woks for specific kinds of work, and employee-owned companies tend to not stay employee-owned on practice. It’s really good that those 2 exist, but it’s a delusion to think you can organize an economy this way. (I’d check for one of those “economy cults” around if you really believe on it.)
You called centrists framing the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion a strawman then accepted the framing. Democratic theory requires consent. It just also requires consent to delegate ruling out consent to alienate management/governenance rights justified by inalienable rights.
Stable employee-owned firms:
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100A country that lets people sell voting rights wouldn’t be democratic for long. Does democracy not work? Is it undesirable?
I had to study the diagram a few times to figure out what the core point was, but I think it boils down to this:
Democracy: Highly equal, 1 person = 1 vote, everyone is included (“inalienist”)
Capitalism: Different levels of power, 1 person = $X, some people can’t participate as much as others (“alienist”)
Does this mean that Democratic Capitalism is somehow an oxymoron? Only in situations where we allow both types of power to coexist - hence the absolutely critical need to:
- Keep money out of politics
- Ban bribes and “gifts” at every level of government
- Fund institutions that prevent corruption and promote transparency
Alienist vs inalienist refers to whether voting/control rights are transferable (alienable).
Better to say institutions based on consent to alienate vs delegate
Voting rights’ transferability with alienist systems implies inequality, but the core point is consent to alienate vs. delegate.
The employment contract is inherently an alienation contract. The workers give up and transfer the management rights to the employer and the employer manages in their own name
what do “alienist” and “inalienist” mean?
Alienist refers to alienation of rights.
Alienist = completely give up and transfer control rights with the recipient ruling in their own name and not in the name of the people governed
Inalienist = revocable delegation where the people retain control rights with the delegates governing in the name of the people governed
Democratic theory draws a distinction between these 2 types of contracts, and invalidates the former
The diagram should say alienation vs. delegation
