No abstract

No abstract

The cliff beneath the feet of western society forces us to flirt with alternative economic systems. These are mostly rhetorical suggestions lacking the necessary gravitas to get us out of the shitty mess that is late capitalism. Instead of dealing with the hound that is slowly nibbling on the hare, we could, for a change, ask the latter why it got itself caught in the first place. The twenty-first century left offers no alternative to late capitalism. The Millennial part is caught up in identity politics that have lost their middle-class common denominator. And the Boomer part is caught up in the dogmatisms of statist socialisms that seem lost in the Instagram space. The new left consideration of the economy should look for inspiration in the radical interpretation of liberalism, democratic theory, inalienable human rights, feminism and abolitionism. As it is difficult to give a column-like presentation of ideas that require the space of book volumes, this essayistic article mainly provides an overview of the main institutions. It will discuss the following questions: why is Marx actually a liberal? Why is capitalism dismantling the ethical basis of private property? What is Boomer socialism and what is the Millennial left? In which points is David Harvey’s understanding of neo-liberalism wrong and why is the state, on the other hand, the epitome of neoliberalism? What is the definition of precarity, how are people working in the culture sector doing and why is precarity not a capitalist category? What is radical economic liberalism and why is it more subversive than étatist socialisms? And, last but not least, what is the realpolitik of an alternative economic system and why does the survival of political democracy depend on it?

PurposeIn addition to increased regulation and platform co-operatives, this paper proposes a third option to address the problem posed by the labor-based platform (LBP) companies and companies' treatment of de facto employees as “independent contractors,” thus avoiding the usual employee benefits.Design/methodology/approachThe paper outlines the history and structure of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) as a mechanism to achieve partial worker ownership of companies.FindingsThe possibility of establishing ESOPs in the local subsidiaries of platform companies is outlined as the third option to reform LBPs.Practical implicationsWhether this option is available in the United States of America is not clear without new litigation or legislation since the existing USA ESOP is for “employees” and the problem is that the LBPs do not classify these platforms' full-time workers as “employees.” Hence, this third option may be mainly relevant to other countries for LBPs that are not already established.Originality/valueThe ESOP approach to changing LBPs is a new suggestion in addition to the usual approaches of increased public regulation and establishing new worker-owned platform co-operatives. The ESOP is a new tool in the hands of municipal and national governments to require in order for the LBPs to be able to operate.