Co-ops would be a great idea, if it weren't for the fact that they have to balance automation with caring for the workers, which is highly inefficient for making profit, which is necessary to survive in a capitalist ecosystem.
Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable.
It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.
It should be recognised that meeting the needs of consumers and meeting high standards for the workers is a difficult thing to get right. Meeting the needs of consumers when it comes at the expense of worker rights I would argue is a bad thing outright.
The consumer is not always right, especially when the consumer is so influenced by advertising and the culture of consumption. I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour.
The main policy that produces high-trust society is to build a monoethnic society comprised of Nordic people. Everyone opposes that besides a few people on the alt-right.
The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people.
>The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people.
Indeed. I suspect the main downfall of mono-ethnic social states is the development of hyper-vigilance against individual defection. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
One wonders if the same effect eventually develops in all societies that are composed of outbred ethnic groups.
The short story: there's an association between declines in social trust and people of different ethnicities living in the same society. It's not clear which way the arrow of causality points, but there is some reason to think that a highly multi-ethnic society leads to decay of social trust (ie defection)
Not at all, I was merely curious as to what you meant. With regard to this problem, I had heard of it before, and I hope there is some kind of solution. I haven't read the paper yet, but I have a feeling it takes root in petty tribalism and legitimate differences in culture. Thanks.
>I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings.
These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to.
I value your needs, I value what you want. But I do not value the fact that your need must only be satisfied by my being forced to sell my time for your need.
I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. Either way, I would argue that the freedom of the whole world, of all the workers, is more important than desires for new cars, computers, jewellery etc.
When we are producing so many products and yet people cannot afford to live with clean water, clothes or not having to worry about starving, lack of health insurance etc. then I think we have a problem.
Capitalism does not function for the purpose of the needs of humans. Not by a long shot, so please do not frame it that way. It is merely a side effect. And I'm not asking you to value my needs, I'm asking you to value the needs of your fellows and, if you are a working person, yourself.
Again, I do not want to satisfy needs under threat of destitution, poverty and death.
These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to.
The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it.
I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced.
So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.
>The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans.
No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival.
>So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me?
>how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them?
None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit.
>I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
> and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade.
None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.
>You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere.
These things only come about due to people realising that capitalism without some kind of governmental safety net is utterly barbaric. It is also impractical, from a philanthropic position, even if I do not sell my labour, others must do it, which I believe is still an injustice.
I do not think it is just that someone must choose between selling their labour and living in destitution and poverty, nor do I think it is just that workers are not rewarded fully for their work.
It is entirely forceful for any semblance of a life free from worry about if one can make it to the next month from the money his government gives him. This holds doubly for those working where exploitation is much more visible, such as sweatshops.
Furthermore in order to support those who do not work, one must pay taxes, which cannot well co-exist with the rights of freedom, equality and dubiously property. Read Proudhon's "What is Property?" for something interesting.
>The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so.
I agree, so why must we be under a system which unfairly compensates those who do no work at all, while those who do the work are routinely exploited? The world is gonna be a lot better off without sweatshop labour and disregard for the environment insofar as profits are made.
In my ideal anarchistic society it is fine to do that. After all, it would be unjust to force you either way to do a particular thing with your product (labour time). But nobody would choose to do that, as they would know that their labour is being exploited.
All wage labour is like this, provided that you are selling it to someone with the express intent for profit. In a society that has prisons and punishment, though, those who exploit labour would be treated the same as those who steal or force people into unconscionable contracts.
The profit motive as shown through history has almost always caused massive environmental damage. Labour standards merely give the illusion of a world without exploitation. In reality your prpgrammer in SV is exploited the same way, but to a lesser degree, than the sweatshoo workers.
Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable.
It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.