I've just read this article with interest and I thought I would share it:
If you don’t like corporate capitalism and you don’t like state socialism, what the hell do you want, and why should we listen to you if you don’t know? Seriously: what do you want? And if you don’t know, what are you talking about?
I have just given you a design principle for a radically decentralized community-building cooperative system. Were you to apply this principle—substantial stability of community markets in a community-sustaining system—linking worker ownership to a design of this kind, you would have a design that doesn’t look like corporate capitalism and doesn’t look like state socialism but begins with community as the dominant principle and works backward from there.
4
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I would argue that there are no bad ideas... try them all, let natural selection weed them out.
Have a ball, as long as participation is not coerced... then it's nobody else's business.
The moment you suggest coerced participation, you're wrong.
If your idea is based on coerced participation... then your whole idea is wrong.
The economy exists within the private sector.
"Managing" the economy, is not a legitimate function of Government.
In the U.S. anyway, we explicitly did not create a government to dictate the terms of our individual financial interactions. Economically: our Congress has a duty to regulate Interstate commerce, and the value of the national currency... and that's it.
With that in mind, and instead of trying to devise a system, based on what we don't want it to look like; why don't we focus on what we do want it to look like... and try to keep that discussion constrained within the context of what we have a right to dictate to others in the first place?
You (and I) do not have any right to dictate the terms of any transaction between any two-or-more other people, or "legal entities".
If any particular matter is really, really important... in your view... then you still don't have that right.
Your opinion about what's important does not give you any extra rights; that's not where rights come from.
Using the Force of Government to impose your priorities on others, where you have no right to do so, is called "Tyranny"... nothing more "noble" than that, no matter how good your intentions.
The only economic approach that does not violate that simple principle, is a "Free Market".
That does not mean "no regulations". Corporations don't have any right to violate your natural rights, any more than any individual does. In the hypothetical event that existing law is insufficient to protect your rights from the Corporation, then specific regulation would be appropriate to establish that protection.
That does not, however, mean that you have some imaginary right to be protected from your own recklessness, ignorance, gullibility, or timid reluctance to stand up for yourself at work or in the marketplace.
If you feel out-gunned by the big, evil corporation... you're free to do whatever you can dream up to mitigate that perceived imbalance.
Just do it in the private sector. That's not what Government is for.
rway
Level 7
Apr 5, 2021
3
Where do you sit Naomi? On the fence playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument?
Tom81
Level 8
Apr 5, 2021
1
Hello there. Not sure what you mean. If you think I'm a stirrer or something, just ignore me. Meanwhile, look at these inputs made by various members. They are all decent comments that reflect the contributors' knowledge and serious thoughts. That's what I enjoy when I come to this site. And where do I sit? Must I define myself as left or right if that's what you mean? I simply don't do that. The reason why I don't do that is in my bio.
@Naomi no, not implying anything, just wondering. I've seen posts by you that make me wonder if you have a particular stance or just enjoy the argument. Some things you say I can agree with, some seem contradictory - which makes me wonder if you believe in anything in particular or just enjoy throwing shit in for people to argue over
I'm neither left or right either, btw.
@Tom81 I'd like to be aware of the other side of the coin when there is a conversation worth having. There are many occasions where I can appreciate both sides. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's much better than having opinions so fixed that you won't allow yourself to consider any different views from yours. Contradictions are also a good thing from which I can find facts/truth - well sometimes. I ponder a lot but that doesn't make me a indecisive person.
@Naomi l don't go to extemes of everything being black and white. I see the complexity of issues and the grey inbetween. I also see how things should be based on individual merit/circumstance rather than a blanket rule. What I don't like is wishy-washy, neutral stance that avoids any real decision/responsibility. Or being the devil's advocate for no other reason than academic argument. Where does it end? Would you for example find it ok if a 10 year old had 'consensual' sex with a 50 year old? I realise that's an extreme example, my whole point is that anyone could play devil's advocate - or they could take a firm stance. That's all I'm really wondering - do you have firm stances or do you just enjoy philosophical arguments and have no real firm stance on much (and I don't mean being 'left' or 'right'. I don't like labels myself, and don't belong to any).
@Tom81 Not sure why you appear to be bothered by devil's advocates. A devil's advocate is a "a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments" - Oxford Dictionary. Freethinkers are devil's advocates in their heads all the time. I'm not clever enough to play a devil's advocate but I like thought-provoking topics whoever raise them. Incidentally, looking at something from multiple angles is different from being wishy-washy.
Anyway, have you read the article? Drop a comment if you are interested in the topic.
@Naomi sure I read the article. Having lived in a socialist/communist system previously and living in a capitalist one now, I can say with certainty that whilst both have flaws - there is nothing worse than socialism/communism.
Under that system, you wouldn't even be allowed to pose the sort of questions that you do. And I find it ironic that the only people arguing for, or defending that system (socialism/communism/marxist trashism), have never had to live under it or have any experience with the reality of it.
As for my previous statements/questions - there's seeing both sides of the coin, and then there's arguing for the sake of arguing.
Hmmm ...
There’s an awful lot here about “Co-Operatives” and that might sound great but, its been my experience over the years, that Co-Operatives simply don’t “Co-Operate”.
Not often within themselves and almost never among themselves.
What seems to be the biggest hurdle is that even the “Best” of them ... the “Best” Ideas ... the “Best” Situations ... refuse to Agree ... Acknowledge ... even Consider ... a Unity of Purpose ... and that’s among Co-Operatives that are Topically Similar in Nature.
When you get to the concept of “Co-Operatives” that are Not Topically Similar in Nature (say Agriculture and Energy) I rarely see anything that even approaches Cooperation.
Please note I use “Co-Operative” and “Co-Operate” deliberately to make a point.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Apr 4, 2021
4
Yep, Worked for a large cooperative some years ago and got it very twisted by management to maximise bonuses and not do at all what the cooperative was originally created for.
Really knocked my view of social cooperation in a capitalist world.
You've hit the nail on the head. That's why socialism doesn't work. Collectives start of like socialism with the greater good in mind but end up in mob rule (and that includes 'democracy' ) - can easily be twisted and coerced into authoritarianism that crushes anyone not part of the 'group think'. Like all things left - starts of with good intentions but gets more evil the bigger the group and the more power there is. In politics the cream gets pushed to the bottom, not rises to the top. The old adage - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely is on point.
Like Ayn Rand noted - The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
The bigger the group, the dumber it gets and the bigger the thug that rules it. Exactly so with co-operatives.
I do not begrudge the innovative, the hard-working, the creative (and let's face it, the fortunate) their having more money than the average individual, but they also must pay their fair share of the services provided by government. Why could one person in a family in the 1950s make enough to take care of all the members allowing one adult to provide constant care to children and manage the complex needs of the household, and today not able to make ends meet with both adults working multiple jobs? The fact that the large majority of people have lost significant money during the pandemic, and the wealthiest have increased their wealth by 400 billion dollars is proof enough of the present inequity.
Pand0ro
Level 7
Apr 4, 2021
2
You make good points. But also remember that people today have a lot more things than people in the 1950s did. The average new home built in the 1950s was under 1,000 sq ft. the house had 2 or 3 tiny bedroom and children shared rooms. The average family had 1 car. There was no Air Conditioning. Mom probably had a washer, but not a dryer. She had to hang the laundry Eating out was something that rarely happened. My mom never ate out until she was 18, not even once. My dad didn't eat out until he was 12 in the 1960s. Today, the average home built is over 2200 sq feet with central air. The average family has 2 or more vehicles of which are SUV or minivan. Nowadays the kids all have $500+ iphones on a monthly plan, and don't forget the iPad. Something Steve Jobs sold everyone who didn't' even know htey wanted one.. It is possible to live on one income today if you live in a modest home that's in an older part of town. Maybe the yard is small and the driveway only holds one car. Many families need two incomes because of lifestyle choices. Going on vacations, eating out, $53,000 Chevy Tahoe etc.
@kwg2005 I am referring to people living in homeless camps, under bridges and in their cars. One of the effects of globalization was forcing American labor to compete with foreign labor. Those people are in no way living in American luxury. Yes there are a lot of people (like me) who have been economically fortunate, But if someone wants to work they should be paid a living wage.
Any thoughts, @TheHerrDark? @Pand0ro? @WilyRickWiles? (I don't mean to put you on the spot, honest!)
Naomi
Level 8
Apr 4, 2021
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.