5 ms·

> An organization of people that seeks shared profit for all its members and does not exploit the labor of non-members Sounds basically impossible to me. How d

> An organization of people that seeks shared profit for all its members and does not exploit the labor of non-members Sounds basically impossible to me. How do you ensure that you don’t exploit the labor of non-members? If you buy as much as even an office chair, or a pencil sharpener, or a carpet, or whatever, there were probably very many people involved and some of them were being exploited in that they were paid a very low amount for their work.

throwanem 6y ago
The language intends to describe a co-op, I think. The intent would not be to restrict the license only to organizations which meet the impossible bar of ethical consumption under capitalism, but rather to those in which everyone who contributes to production has a meaningful voice in what is produced and how - or, again, a co-op. I feel like it would be more useful to describe the types of organizations to which the license refers in terms that might be more clear to people not already familiar. Perhaps I'll email them, or something - shame I can't open a PR.
- nailer 6y ago
  > the impossible bar of ethical consumption under capitalism Under non-capitalism ethical consumption would also be rare, as it would be common for money paid by a consumer to be stolen from another, since all labour is rewarded equally without regard to effort or ingenuity.
  - johnny22 6y ago
    that implies that you think that your idea of what communism is also the only alternative to capitalism. That is not the case.
    - nailer 6y ago
      Small asides: obviously that idea of communism isn't just my perception, it's the historical record of communism. What other non-capitalist modes of economy exist? Agrarian society isn't too common, social democracy is a form of capitalism.
      - guerrilla 6y ago
        Various forms of mutualism [1], libertarian socialism [2], market socialism [3] and democratic state socialism [4] are all non-capitalisms. The only "communism" you are familiar with from history is Marxism-Lenninism and Moaism (a variation of the former.) Both of them are authoritarian state socialisms, although I'd argue that their historical incarnations weren't even that since there really was no social ownership, it was just capitalism with a single monopoly and black markets. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
        nailer 6y ago
        > The only "communism" you are familiar with from history is Marxism-Lenninism and Moaism (a variation of the former.) That is the only communism that has ever existed at scale. Please stop trying to equate documented world history with personal subjective viewpoints. > Various forms of mutualism [1], libertarian socialism [2], market socialism [3] and democratic state socialism [4] are all non-capitalisms. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to, the countries described as social democracies (typically Nordic) are also capitalist. What countries have mutualist economies?
        throwanem 6y ago
        This is a weak argument. You're responding with a demand for historical examples of alternatives to an argument, not that history provides examples of all alternatives, but that history provides poor examples of how some alternatives can be implemented. As presented, your argument reduces to the claim that nothing which has not already been done can ever be done, which is so transparently absurd that I can't imagine it's what you actually intend to say.
        6y ago
hooby 6y ago
To me this sounds pretty much like Mondragon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Rare, but not outright impossible.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  Mondragon would not be allowed to use software under this license.
guerrilla 6y ago
> Sounds basically impossible to me. How do you ensure that you don’t exploit the labor of non-members? If I'm not mistaken, it's suggesting that you can only buy from other worker-owned cooperatives. > If you buy as much as even an office chair, or a pencil sharpener, or a carpet, or whatever, there were probably very many people involved and some of them were being exploited in that they were paid a very low amount for their work. If you're not buying from another worker-owned cooperative you could buy it second-hand, which isn't ordering any new labor to be done. If this is what they intended and if this wasn't clear to you then I think that's a problem for the license because there's really no room for such ambiguity and interpretation. It's going to have to be a lot more explicit than it is for it to be useful.

throwanem 6y ago

The language intends to describe a co-op, I think. The intent would not be to restrict the license only to organizations which meet the impossible bar of ethical consumption under capitalism, but rather to those in which everyone who contributes to production has a meaningful voice in what is produced and how - or, again, a co-op. I feel like it would be more useful to describe the types of organizations to which the license refers in terms that might be more clear to people not already familiar. Perhaps I'll email them, or something - shame I can't open a PR.

nailer 6y ago
> the impossible bar of ethical consumption under capitalism Under non-capitalism ethical consumption would also be rare, as it would be common for money paid by a consumer to be stolen from another, since all labour is rewarded equally without regard to effort or ingenuity.
- johnny22 6y ago
  that implies that you think that your idea of what communism is also the only alternative to capitalism. That is not the case.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Small asides: obviously that idea of communism isn't just my perception, it's the historical record of communism. What other non-capitalist modes of economy exist? Agrarian society isn't too common, social democracy is a form of capitalism.
    - guerrilla 6y ago
      Various forms of mutualism [1], libertarian socialism [2], market socialism [3] and democratic state socialism [4] are all non-capitalisms. The only "communism" you are familiar with from history is Marxism-Lenninism and Moaism (a variation of the former.) Both of them are authoritarian state socialisms, although I'd argue that their historical incarnations weren't even that since there really was no social ownership, it was just capitalism with a single monopoly and black markets. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
      - nailer 6y ago
        > The only "communism" you are familiar with from history is Marxism-Lenninism and Moaism (a variation of the former.) That is the only communism that has ever existed at scale. Please stop trying to equate documented world history with personal subjective viewpoints. > Various forms of mutualism [1], libertarian socialism [2], market socialism [3] and democratic state socialism [4] are all non-capitalisms. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to, the countries described as social democracies (typically Nordic) are also capitalist. What countries have mutualist economies?
        throwanem 6y ago
        This is a weak argument. You're responding with a demand for historical examples of alternatives to an argument, not that history provides examples of all alternatives, but that history provides poor examples of how some alternatives can be implemented. As presented, your argument reduces to the claim that nothing which has not already been done can ever be done, which is so transparently absurd that I can't imagine it's what you actually intend to say.
        6y ago

hooby 6y ago

To me this sounds pretty much like Mondragon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Rare, but not outright impossible.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
Mondragon would not be allowed to use software under this license.

guerrilla 6y ago

> Sounds basically impossible to me. How do you ensure that you don’t exploit the labor of non-members? If I'm not mistaken, it's suggesting that you can only buy from other worker-owned cooperatives. > If you buy as much as even an office chair, or a pencil sharpener, or a carpet, or whatever, there were probably very many people involved and some of them were being exploited in that they were paid a very low amount for their work. If you're not buying from another worker-owned cooperative you could buy it second-hand, which isn't ordering any new labor to be done. If this is what they intended and if this wasn't clear to you then I think that's a problem for the license because there's really no room for such ambiguity and interpretation. It's going to have to be a lot more explicit than it is for it to be useful.