5 ms·
The communist / capitalist symmetry is quite something. In communism, the individual doesn't really own anything; the state just lets the individual use things
by foobarbecue 3y ago
The communist / capitalist symmetry is quite something.
In communism, the individual doesn't really own anything; the state just lets the individual use things as they see fit.
In our late-stage capitalism, the individual doesn't really own anything; the corporation just lets the individual use things as they see fit.
- verdverm 3y agoI would not extrapolate a trend into a permanent change. Trends have a way of being fads or reversed
- schaefer 3y agoAre you calling streaming media like Spotify a trend? What was the last time you bought an album?
- alpos 3y agoSome time well before torrents were a thing? Music became essentially free long before it become a thing people rent.
- verdverm 3y agoThat is different from a car. With Spotify, I get access to all the music and don't lose it when the cd gets scratched. What the auto companies are doing is gating the existing functionality behind subscriptions. These companies are largely commodities at this point and are trying out rent seeking. I don't think many consumers will accept this long term. The proverbial camel's back will break because it is user hostile
- alpos 3y agoI keep trying to tell the socialists and communists out there that they can totally implement the way they want to live within any democratic capitalist system. Just make a corporation which all of your people are members of, give voting powers to all members to decide what stuff the corporation buys as well as how members get to use the things. Can even go as far as setting up an HOA or a town where the company is the landlord for everyone or has right of first refusal in every property in that area. Once you have enough people to make some stuff on your own, the company call sell that stuff and that's the only touch point you all have to have with the capitalist economy. With time the members you have, the more stuff you can make yourselves, and the less stuff you company has to sell or buy. Eventually you're totally self-sufficient, don't make transactions, and therefore don't really pay taxes either. They usually don't go for it because they are not really bothered that they can't live the way they want to so much as they are bothered that other people might still live under capitalism.
- foobarbecue 3y agoYes, communes are a thing. Shrug.
- alpos 3y agoI've seen and read up on how some of the communes have gone, but I haven't seen any that made a serious attempt to run a company that way. By using the existing structures as a buffer, as I am proposing, a group could actually make the commune thing work without giving up any modern conveniences. It's somewhat similar to what Amish people do, and they do quite well at it in terms of sustainably living as they wish even though no one else around them does. They pull that off by trading the things they do want to make for the things the surrounding society has that they actually want. It's totally possible to do a socialist version of that where everyone lives in modern houses with modern conveniences, share whatever stuff you all actually want to be building yourselves, but when you have to buy or vote on something, do so through the company and as a block. Mormons have largely gotten away with block voting over the decades, and still do, so we also have existing evidence that that works too. The details are, of course, up to whoever is trying this out, but the overall thing I'm pointing to, that I don't think anyone has given a real go at, is that using a company as a buffer against capitalism. No one has to live without, but individuals in the community also don't have to go play the capitalist game every day just to get what they want or need.
- foobarbecue 3y agoMy read: you have an ambitious vision for a specific type of commune. Might work, who knows? If you believe in it, do it. Let us know how it goes.
- alpos 3y agoMore like a different kind of sharing app/company as the potential starting point to people figuring out how to live the way they want to. I am indeed wondering out loud about whether anyone would participate in such a system. To me, it could look like a bunch of people join a company through an app or something and receive voting shares they keep as long as they are participating. Members would contribute various kinds of property and only members can vote on who gets to use what, for how long, and what, if anything gets sold to fund the company. At least initially, it would probably also have to be funded by members working regular jobs and contributing cash to the company but pretty shortly afterwards the idea would be to have the business making money on it's own by selling things the members make and want to sell. The cash would then be used to buy anything the members vote to buy. Which then becomes part of the property pool people can vote on using. As long as the members are geographically distributed, the company would also need to pay for shipping stuff around when it's time to change who is using what. If it is profitable enough, then it might be able to provide most or all of what the members need to live their best lives. Short of that, it may at least be able to create a micro version of UBI or something. There are a lot more details to work out than those of course. I do actually want to see if this approach can do something to help people live they way they want to. However, it's hard to imagine any communists or socialists wanting to join such a company if it is run by someone with a capitalist mindset. Even if that person's motives are pure and clear. Naturally, even if I was administrating such a system, I wouldn't allow myself voting powers in it but I suspect still that wouldn't be enough.