Econ 101 is designed to obfuscate the real issues. Even talking about specific wealth distribution ratios is falling for the misframing of the issues that Econ 101 wants to lead people into with the pie metaphor. In the capitalist firm, the employer holds 100% of the property rights for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs while workers qua employees get 0% of that. The entire division of the pie metaphor in Econ 101 is based around hiding this fact

@196

Capitalism v. communism is certainly a false dilemma. There are other alternatives such as Georgism as you noted. I would go further and advocate a Georgist economic democracy where all firms are structured as worker coops. Similar to the problem you identify with capitalism in that it fails to treat land and capital differently, the mainstream of Georgist thought fails to differentiate labor from capital in an important respect. Labor can’t factually be transferred unlike capital @196

Abolishing slavery did not prevent people from acting in a manner they wished. It prevented them from having the lack of rights of a slave. Similarly, preventing people from being wage laborers just means that that working in a firm would automatically confer voting rights over the firm and make management democratically accountable to the people that work in the firm

I am using the conventional definition of voluntariness. It is the people that are suggesting that wage labor is involuntary that are using unconventional definitions of the notion of voluntariness.

Even if this more expansive notion of voluntariness was coherent, it would not be an argument against capitalism per se because capitalism can have a UBI.

Hopefully, a teacher does not steal the positive and negative fruits of the student’s labor

No involuntary impositions of power and authority is the centrist position. The anarchist position should be no impositions of power and authority even if they are voluntary. A perfect example of voluntary power and authority is wage labor. By any usable standard, wage labor is voluntary. Anarchists should object to wage labor because it involves a hierarchy of alienation. This violates workers’ inalienable rights, which are rights that can’t be given up even with consent

Capitalism violates the workers’ inalienable rights and actually it violates property rights’ moral basis, getting the fruits of your labor. The typical firm’s employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative fruits of the workers’ joint labor while the workers as employees receive 0% of the property rights (not talking about value) to the whole product. The basis I mentioned is based on a basic principle of justice of legal and de facto responsibility matching

I agree with most of your points except the points about worker democracy. Being able to exit is not the same as having voice and exit, which is what worker democracy involves. The employer is not a workers’ delegate. Their managers manage the firm in the employer’s name. The employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm. The workers are de facto responsible for creating the product. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match

If given a choice between democratically elected politicians and unaccountable dictators and autocrats, I would choose politicians.

By capitalism, I mean specific institutions. I have specific solutions in mind such as recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy, and common ownership of land, natural resources, and the means of production.

Land’s inelastic supply, which can only be solved by socializing it, plays a role in housing costs.

Work issues remain unsolved by those two

Shitty bosses are probably less likely if your boss is ultimately democratically accountable to you and not to the some alien legal party that is your employer

As an anti-capitalist, I disagree. He conflated the role of the employer with the owner of the means of production, which led him to the mistaken conclusion that rejecting capitalist appropriation requires rejecting private property per se. It’s really the employment contract that enables capitalist appropriation and exploitative property relations. There are other reasons to oppose private ownership, but that is another story. The classical laborists’ criticisms are spot on not Marx’s

Not if you use anonymizing software

Yeah free as in freedom not as in price.

The closest anyone’s come to a mechanism that would allow efficient financing of public goods like free software is quadratic funding. Unfortunately, there are unsolved issues with collusion and identity verification

That makes the privacy issues with YouTube worse. They can link your YouTube watch history with your identity

Workers aren’t the only factor the creates value. Capital and land also add value. Why would people use them otherwise?

That being said, the workers are jointly responsible for their actions in production while capital is merely an instrument of their will and cannot be responsible for anything. Workers are denied the positive and negative results of their actions, so we should not care

To have some sort of viable fediverse alternative to YouTube, the developers of it would have to abandon some of the free software principles that current fediverse platforms uphold. There needs to be a way to monetize to attract creators and get people to host the servers

The trick is to edit out the mention of the lemmy community before you add the hashtags then lemmy doesn’t see the updated version of the post with the hash tags, but people on mastodon see the hash tags