Responsibility and Inalienable Rights
The theoretical basis for worker cooperatives was derived decades ago but the results remain obscure and widely ignored. The implications are of immense significance cut to the core of our societal structure. In particular are the invalidation of the standard employment contract when correctly identified as a contract for human rental, and the exposure of the fundamental myth promoted by both Capitalism and Marxism which misidentifies the appropriation of new products with a former property right.
The theory rests on the principle that responsibility is an inalienable right. People (as opposed to things) have an inherent responsibility for their actions. This responsibility cannot legitimately be sold, traded, or given away. To do so would be dehumanizing (treating a person as a thing) and thus invalid. Defending a people’s inalienable rights was also one of many arguments against slavery.
Responsibility is alienated by by the standard employment contract by transferring it to the firm. The employee is denied responsibility for the consumed materials, services or products produced, and profit or loss which results from their actions. They are also largely unaccountable for the broader social implications of their activity at work.
An employee’s actions while at work can be determined by the management, generally without input from the worker, further removing their personal responsibility. The agreement to let their actions be dictated is a condition for remaining employed.
Responsibility can be restored by having a firm that is fully owned by the workers and is democratically self managed. These are the defining features of a worker cooperative. A more through treatment can be found in Property and Contract in Economics and The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm.
There is substantial pressure for those within the private employment system to ignore the invalidity of the employment (human rental) contract. If they espouse the self employment alternative and reject the status quo they become a pariah, and if they acknowledge it and do not act on it they become a hypocrite. Neither are pleasant choices. A happier state can be achieved by forgetting the matter.
The mainstream corporate media have done their part to maintain public ignorance by applying considerable self-censorship with respect to this topic. The standard economics, finance, and business curriculum in the academic community has fared little better.
The Deception
The debate between Capitalism and Marxism illustrates the sophisticated propaganda system that is used to manipulate public opinion in societies where free speech is protected. The trick is to choose a frame work that presupposes the key assumptions and then have a vigorous discussion confined within those narrow boundaries giving the impression of healthy debate. In this case the assumption is that the appropriation of newly created goods is determined by previous property rights (owning the inputs), as opposed to creating the product (labor). The firm who owns the means of production in the typical Capitalist case becomes owner of the new property as does the state in the Marxist case. As both Capitalism and Marxism make the same crucial mistake in determining appropriation the debate between the two can safely proceed. Which is a more efficient means of production, a free market or command economy? Did capitalism triumph? And so on. . .
Incessant market news and commentary put out by the financial community helps subdue any serious discussion beyond minor technical details. The diversion is complete with theories, backed by mathematical models and equations for equity valuations, derivatives pricing, and portfolio management all built on an unstated and incorrect assumption. Advanced degrees are even awarded for fully accepting and internalizing of the underlying assumptions as those with Master’s in Business Administration can attest. Inquiry into these topics is considered heresy.
