WindAqueduct comments on Talking to liberals

[+] WindAqueduct@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

[deleted]

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Markets are fundamentally profit driven, and services like healthcare or housing need to be provided regardless of the profit motive. These are a natural fit for the state owned industries. Where markets can have a role is providing nice to have things that improve general quality of life, but aren't living essentials.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

*Capital markets. Commodity markets are fine as long as you align stakeholders with ownership. So worker and consumer coöps. Rental and housing coöps are a great example.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

How do you prevent the commodities turning into capital?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago

You don't have to. If it becomes capital, then it is subject to the same multi-stakeholder analysis.

If I bought a printer, it would just be a commodity. If I start selling products made from said printer and hire more people, then it would need to be a worker coöp.

How would an authoritarian socialist system handle someone wanting a printer given that it could be used as capital?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I like to take a Mutualist position on it. Things should only be socialized to their direct stakeholders. So most companies would be worker coöps. Utilities would be consumer worker coöps. And large interstate transit would be federal. Universal healthcare would fall into the later as a largescale consumer coöp.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago

As a Mutualist, I firmly disagree. Coöps are essentially a democratic alternative to top-down coercive management styles or forms of ownership. It is a mutualist system that is antithetical to competition.

Take a renter's coöp for example. Essentially everyone owns their building and they aren't competing with other buildings or have shareholders would expect a return on investment.

With coöps you can actually respect locality. Large auth-socialist systems will often have with people competing interests who have undo control over local systems. That isn't to say broader standards shouldn't exist, but that they should be done thru voluntary industry wide syndication.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

To make clear the point Cowbee made, consider these three scenarios:-

The different parts of the country have different levels of natural resources / infrastructure / educational facilities. Co-ops i the wealthier areas are doing well, and all their employees are prospering. But those in the poorer areas are struggling, and all their employees are struggling.
There are five co-ops making the same type of product (say, radios). They each have their own design office, factory, sales networks and marketing. Would it not be more efficient to consolidate them?
There is a co-op that works in digging coal and running a thermal power plant. The society as a whole would benefit from switching to solar panels, but this co-op keeps blocking all such efforts since it would hurt them.