• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Capitalism inherently violates a basic tenet of justice. For example, consider a bus vehicle company, the employer owns 100% of the produced buses and owes 100% of liabilities for used-up inputs. The employer is solely legally responsible for the whole result of production. Workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce buses. The basic tenet of justice is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. There is clearly a mismatch here in capitalism @memes

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Wait, so you’re saying the bus drivers should be responsible for maintenance of the bus they drive, and own it, and the company should just take a cut? So, uber but for busses?

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

        I was describing a company to produce buses i.e. the actual vehicle. Not for driving buses. The alternative to what I describe as the problem with capitalism is to structure all firms as worker cooperatives. In a worker cooperative, the basic tenet of justice is satisfied i.e. legal and de facto responsibility match @memes

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        No. Sole proprietorships are not Socialist. A more accurate outlook would be a given city’s bus drivers all sharing ownership of the busses, along with the other workers at the bus driving firm like the maintenance employees and coordinators. That industry itself would be collectively owned by the Workers, not at an individual level.

        The distinction would be rather than a dictatorial Capitalist owning the firm, the Workers would share ownership of the firm equally.