There are ideologies that believe control rights over firms belong to the workers in those firms. In these ideologies, the control rights can't be given up or transferred even with consent from the workers in the firm i.e. are inalienable. Neoliberalism specifically endorses the alienability control rights over firms. The non-democratic nature of the firm under neoliberal capitalism creates a class used to democratically unaccountable power
What do you mean by work in the statement, "Capitalism can work?"
EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking what normative criteria you are using to assess the system. There is no non-moral objective notion of a system working without some ethical goal in mind
Capitalism's defining institutions are
The alternative to capitalism I propose, Georgist economic democracy, abolishes 1 and 3. 2 continues formally but there is widespread collective ownership of the means of production. Markets continue to exist to help coordinate production and allocate resources. Many defenders of capitalism incorrectly conflate capitalism with markets @general
Whether there is a power imbalance between customer and provider is dependent on how competitive the market is. When providers have market power, consumers can form associations to collectively bargain down providers' prices.
Is there an enshittification example without IP?
Enshittification usually happens with monopolistic firms not competitive markets.
What would you replace markets with specifically?
Quadratic funding lets public goods be free. I can't see how it's extractive @memes
The only way incentives based on outcome work is when people produce directly for their own use. For cases where people produce for others, the profit motive helps coordinate people to produce. Power imbalances can be avoided by collectivizing means of production across multiple coops.
Enshittification requires IP monopolies. Economic democracy shouldn't have IP monopolies. Instead, it should secure software freedom. Digital public goods should be funded through quadratic funding @memes
Why is the profit motive terrible in your view? What should we replace the profit motive with?
What is the benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists to challenging that particular preconceived notion? It creates an unnecessary roadblock when pro-market anti-capitalists can just describe themselves as radically democratic liberals, who want to extend democracy into the workplace @memes
I want to convince leftists that there is no benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists referring to themselves as socialist. It is an unnecessary association that only comes with downsides @memes
It was a good question. I am limited in response length because I am on Mastodon.
In terms of social dynamics of a stateless society, The Possibility of Cooperation by the game theorist Michael Taylor uses game theory to argue against the Hobbesian case for the state. Radical Markets by E. Glen Weyl covers how to do common ownership with minimal administration @memes
I know how leftists define it, but when communicating with non-leftists, it doesn't help in understanding the economic democracy position.
The strongest critique of a system is that the ideology used to justify it, after mapping out its logical implications, is actually opposed to it @memes
When people think of socialism they think of central planning in an authoritarian government, this has nothing to do with economic democracy and is its opposite.
I prefer the term economic democracy for the system I advocate.
It's not just optics. The arguments for economic democracy are based on the liberal theory of inalienable rights. These arguments demonstrate that capitalism is illiberal and violates liberal principles @memes
In an economy of worker coops, there is democratic control, but it is decentralized in nature @memes