This commenter is weirdly passionate about what kinds of porn Blahaj federates with.

Someone else here mentioned that being an LGBTQ+ instance and allowing association with porn occasionally described as "childlike" isn't something Blahaj can afford in this political climate.

They're already being called child groomers. You don't want something that can be twisted into ammunition by bad actors.

Exactly this. Right wing propaganda already portrays the LGBTQ+ community as child groomers who are sexualizing minors.

Forget gasoline or lighter fluid: allowing federation with "barely 18!" content would throw a whole propane tank on that fire.

Okay... I'm a bit confused... but I think you are saying the worker in the private company provides -- as his main product -- labor, even though he's still directly responsible for the creation of the sprocket that he poured. And that he is rewarded for his labor, which is his primary contribution, even though he receives no direct reward for the creation of the sprocket.

Am I understanding you? Please ignore everything below this if I'm not understanding you.

On the other hand, if I am understanding you correctly, please read on: the worker in the co-op performed the same task. And unlike the private worker, the co-op worker is given a reward for more than just his labor. He's given a vote in who the sprocket is sold to, a vote in the price set when the sprocket is sold, a vote in the exact mixture of ores going into the sprocket, and (without needing to ask for a raise, without needing to change jobs) the worker in the worker co-op gets a voice in how much he gets paid, what hours he gets scheduled, and how much vacation and sick leave he is allowed.

The worker in the worker co-op gets a voice in general. Agency.

I don't see how those two things just seem like different flavors of "company" to you. One strips the worker of everything but his labor. The other gives him a voice.

To me, that makes them opposites.

What I was trying to explain is the “direct consequences of their labor” is the compensation they’re paid for providing said labor. You, as a worker, sell your labor for a price, same as any other transaction. If you will, your “sprocket” in this situation is the labor you provide.

I get that the worker is not the only reason the sprocket exists. I understand that he uses someone's else alloy-pouring lava-pitcher to pour molten steel into a sprocket cast someone else owns. Whoever owns those things and consented / instructed for them to be used in the above manner shares responsibility (might even be more responsible) for the creation of that sprocket. But the sprocket still doesn't exist until the worker poured the alloy.

The fact that the worker then didn't create a sprocket, or produce a sprocket, or cause a sprocket to exist -- is an alienating step only found in certain kinds of businesses. (And those are the only kinds of businesses anti-capitalists dislike).

For example, a worker can walk into a worker co-op, pour the same kind of alloy heated in the same kind of furnace into a cast that is shaped the exact same, but the worker at this co-op (unlike the worker for the private company) has now created a sprocket.

I'm pretty sure you would agree, right? Because he co-owns the company and he had a democratic voice in the acquisition of the company's tools? He is responsible for all of the things that caused that sprocket to be created. No other factors were more involved than the worker-owner's contributions and decisions.

So even though the co-op worker did the exact same thing using the exact same kinds of machinery as the private company worker, would you agree that the sprocket (which only existed after he poured the alloy) was a direct consequence of the co-op worker's actions? (Whereas it was not a direct consequence of the private employee's actions)

I'm with J Lou. Even Marx considered capital a valid input to the production process. He just thought it was being misused.

He believed the workers should control capital democratically. He believed our current treatment of capital (what capital entitles a person to do under our current system) was destroying people's lives and hope and autonomy.

But Marx and Engels actually dedicated several paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto to explaining why capital should not be destroyed during the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -- indicating that they did believe capital to be valuable.

I see a lot of comments saying workers are not allowed to own what they produce. That their employer takes it from them. I feel this is flawed and possibly comes from a place of frustration.

That's not frustration. The viewpoint you are describing (that workers are not allowed to own what they produce) actually comes from a different definition of "capital" and "capitalism" than the one you are using. And that difference in definitions is why I created this post. And I appreciate your answer. It lets me highlight the differences in definitions and the consequences of those differences. Because in the case of capitalism, the difference in definitions are actually more important than any difference in values or priorities.

You noted that people are saying "workers aren't allowed to own what they produce in capitalism." But those people are not referring to capitalism as you have defined it.

Capital

Capital is a combination of property and money. Property being the things you own, with money being a measure of potential property you don’t yet own.

I'm sorry, but no one who disagrees with you thinks that the ability to accrue property and money deprive workers of control over what they produce. Not even Marx and Engels. Not even Mao or Stalin. Certainly, property and money can we wielded in such a way that they become capital. But until then, property and money are merely wealth.

The definition used by people like Marx and Engels -- or by the entire field of economics -- is: capital is property that allows or speeds up the production of goods. A mine. An oil rig. A McDonalds burger conveyor-belt-oven-thingy. A 3D printer. In other words, the word "capital" is about the function of the property. Not its value. A painting can cost $1,000,000 and still not become capital. Because no one will ever operate that painting to cook burgers. Or to mine ores.

Capitalism

Now "the ability to own commodity-producing property" is still not quite sufficient for a system to become "capitalism." In fact, Marx and Engels didn't want any capital to be destroyed at all in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Because even under the definition of "capital" that communists still to this day believe in, the existence of capital and ownership of it are still not inherently a source of coercion.

There's another crucial piece to the puzzle that leads to people complaining about the whole system:

In capitalism as a system, some form of employment contract always allows the owner of capital to own everything produced using that capital.

For example, the oil rig owner -- according to employment contracts -- owns all of the oil produced using the oil rig. But not only did the owner not need to work the rig to extract the oil: the owner also did not need to weld the seams or turn the screws to build the oil rig. All the owner needs is official ownership of the oil rig and a system that acknowledges their right to everything the oil rig produces, (regardless of who needed to input their labor to turn the oil rig into anything other than a metal sculpture in the ocean.) and with those two things, they are entitled to all of the proceeds of the rig.

Now, hopefully, you can see that, provided a worker has entered into such a contract, "workers are not allowed to own what they produce" is not a statement born from frustration: it's just true by definition. It's not saying "the worker is NEVER allowed to own anything they ever create in this society." It's saying: "within the relationship laid out by the employment contract, the worker who operates capital is not entitled to the direct consequences of their labor."

Now, whether the worker benefits from this arrangement is another picture, but in accepting an employment contract, the worker is entering into a dynamic where they do not own the outcome of their own labor.

Bonus Question #4

Which is why bonus question #4 (the difference between a workers' cooperative and a company that uses these employment contracts) is extremely important to understanding the consequences of the difference between these definitions. You even touched on its importance in your earlier replies, saying yourself:

If that worker is employed by a sprocket making company; they still make sprockets, but that’s not what they produce. They produce labor. Which they’ve chosen to sell to the sprocket company for money and/or other benefits

(Aside: what you're describing here is literally Marx's theory of alienation.) But more importantly,

I'm assuming the sprocket company "produces" sprockets by your definition of "produce." Well, in a workers' co-op, the workers vote in the decisions of the company. They elect the CEO (if there is one) and the managers. They take shares of the profits. They are the company. And if the workers are the company, and the company produces sprockets, then the workers are once again -- just like if they were self-employed, but with the benefits of efficiency and networking that come from being part of an organization -- producing sprockets. They are no longer (as Marx would say) alienated from the results of their labor.

In other words, the co-op is a form of self-employment according to the definitions you appear to be using. Which makes the distinction between cooperatives and other kinds of companies... massive.

The people saying, "capitalism strips workers of the results of their labor" love workers' co-ops. Love them. Despite you probably defining the workers' cooperative as "another example of capitalism", not even avowed Marxists would in any circumstance suggest that the worker co-op "disallows workers from owning what they produce." In fact, they strongly believe the opposite. To them (and to Marx himself) the worker cooperative operates under an entire opposing paradigm to the worker contract. And to them, it is therefore a rival philosophy to capitalism.

You don't have to accept their definitions. You don't need to believe Marxist definitions are correct. You can believe co-ops are capitalist all you want.

But please: try to understand that when people criticize "capitalism," they are (I 100% guarantee) referring to something far more narrow and far more specific than what you call capitalism.

Ah... good point. My description did nothing to distinguish capitalism from feudalism. There is necessity for some mention of who is allowed ownership of this form of property. (Or what is allowed ownership as is often the case.)

As for the word private though: I wanted to avoid more terms I would need to define that might obscure my definition. Also I'm not even sure what distinguishes private ownership from other kinds of ownership. Or what makes a private entity.

But thanks for the input. At some point I'll edit my definition.

It took me all day to understand this one, but that is an excellent point. We do mislabel the problem. Those employment contracts are indeed far more damaging than capital itself. Thank you for this perspective.

Ideally, copyrights and patents would protect the small inventor and small musician. Unfortunately, wielding copyrights and patents in any useful way requires other forms of capital. (You have to have wealth in order to sue someone for infringement.)

Okay, I absolutely love this response. All the way down.

And no, you didn't need to read o_o's thread. My personal summary of it is that people who defined capitalism as, "anything that allows individuals control over the fruits of their labor" and people who defined capitalism as, "the alienation of workers from the fruits of their labor" were talking right past each other, not really understanding that the points they were making only supported their argument if you assumed their definitions were correct.

For reference, there’s an author named Charles Eisenstein who in his book “Sacred Economics” advocates for taking steps that he intends to move us (the world, I guess) eventually to a gift-based economy without money or barter. And he calls it capitalism. With a straight face. Now, I don’t know if deep down in his heart he believes it actually qualifies as capitalism or if he’s calling it capitalism because he feels like his aims are more likely to be well received by pro-capitalists if he calls it “capitalism.”

That is amusing. And yeah. That sounds very pragmatic. Or ignorant. Hard to tell which. But Eisenstein sounds like an interesting character. And like you said, if one needs to call their ideal system "capitalism" to get it implemented, then there's no real crime.

• the profit motive
• quid pro quo
• private property
• the institution of employment

Solid. I like these components.

As to your third question, let me take exception with the question itself. I don’t believe “control over what you produce” is necesssarily a good thing per se. I believe in having something roughly like ownership rights over what one uses. But if one produce a surplus, I don’t believe they should be able to deprive others in need of said surplus.

That fascinates me. I have always heard the struggle phrased essentially as, "you control your proceeds" vs "someone else controls your proceeds." I didn't realize people were advocating philosophies that bowed to the idea that "needs" should take priority over personal possessions. I'll have to think about that one for a while.

1. I… don’t know or care? “Capitalist” can mean someone who supports the institution of capitalism. Or it can mean something like an owner of a company that employs people. I think plenty of people participate in capitalism (by selling things they make, by accepting an employment position, etc) out of necessity while disapproving of the system as a whole. Hell, I’m one of them. I’m not sure I understand why you ask.

This answer is wonderful. Again, I like that you acknowledge that the definitions are so varied that they aren't even useful anymore.

The main reason I asked? It was a leading question: my goal was that people's answers would highlight the differences between their definitions. Because, if people could understand why their definitions were fundamentally different, maybe they could understand why they were talking past each other?

I'm not sure if the effort will succeed. But I really liked and appreciated this answer.

🤣 🤣

Look, I promise: I was just annoyed at people talking past each other on the question @o_o@programming.dev asked. And I just wanted to ask the question in a way that might address the problems that o_o's question ran into.