Cirdan

Cirdan, 10 days ago

@randahl
I'm sure killer robot dogs are as fully functional as Musk's 100% fully functional hands-free driving. I would suspect that killer robot dogs are as accurate as using bio-warfare on an enemy.

Cirdan, 13 days ago

Ownership of the means of production began coalescing in private ownership as the result of agrarianism and mercantilism toward the end of Feudalism. Capitalism in its modern form emerged from agrarianism in 16th century England and mercantilist practices by European countries in the 16th to 18th centuries. As a result, traditional capitalism naturally inherited the mantle of individual ownership of the means of production as its method of conducting commerce.

2/6

Cirdan, 13 days ago

Today, society sees that the problem is exacerbated because of the continued accumulation of property in fewer and fewer individuals, the incessant drive for higher and higher profits, and the lemming-like march of traditional capitalism toward societal oblivion, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Bronze Age Collapse in 1200 B.C.E.

3/6

Cirdan, 13 days ago

Conjecturally, the problem is that capitalism started on the wrong foot hundreds of years ago with Feudalism, in general, and in England with the advent of William the Conqueror in 1066. Had capitalism developed so that the means of production (and the earned surplus) were owned "in commons" like commons were held in England and Europe since the Roman times, capitalism would have developed equitably over the last 400 years.

4/6

Cirdan, 13 days ago

Consider what if the peasants and commoners could have used their commons as income producing property for the use and benefit of their respective groups of people. As whimsical as this may sound, one only needs to examine Ixtlán, a modern town in Mexico to see this vibrant concept in action. This approach, communal capitalism, accomplishes end results convergent with the end results that Commons Capitalism would create.

5/6

Cirdan, 13 days ago

A paper discussing Ixtlán and its form of Communal Capitalism which is similar to Commons Capitalism can be found at:

https://www.ccmss.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/The-community-as-Entrepreneurial-firm.pdf

RETURN TO COMMONS CAPITALISM at:

https://awscommunity.social/@Cirdan/112509414520700948

6/6

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
There are all sorts of coops. I'm sure you're right that millions of people are members of different coops. But, a worker coop is just one form of coop and, no, there aren't millions of members of worker coops. Even as impressive as Mondragon is, it's the exception and not the rule. If you can cite to me other "Mondragons," let me know because I'd love to study them.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
Commons Capitalism has no ownership of the means of production for the benefit of the general public. Also, it has no members who get any votes. There's no communism to it. It fits the definition of capitalism. It doesn't fit the definition of socialism.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
Just because the nonprofit owns the means of production, that doesn't mean it's communist any more than any corporation is communist because they owned property. The nonprofit is constrained by state and federal law, the articles of incorporation, and its bylaws to solely benefit workers.

1/2

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
I understand where you are coming from in your criticism. And, a lot of that criticism, understandably, is based on 400 years of traditional capitalism and 800 years of workers getting marginalized. I can't show in the limited space allowed by Mastodon how Commons Capitalism protects against that. It's truly a beast that can eat traditional capitalism's lunch and distributes ALL its net profits for wages and social benefits to workers.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
Those are good questions. I think those questions are better left to a vote of the workers. But nobody knows what form each Commons Capitalism Entity (CCE) will take. The best we can do, today, is provide CCEs with the tools necessary to successfully answer those questions and implement the worker's requests.

1/2

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
Worker coops are fine. I don't have any problems with them. But to suggest they will be the overall answer to tradtional capitalism, well, they aren't and won't be. Worker coops have limiting factors, such as requiring each owner-worker to invest equity in the coop and determining how much to pay the worker-owner on his or her withdrawal from the coop. Most worker coops tend to be small and aren't federated like Mondragon.

1/2

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
But the concern I have for them is that they are nothing more than traditional capitalist enties. As such, worker’s coops are subject to the traditional capitalism way of thinking that has been around for 400 years.

2/2

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
Equity matters because that's what you have to contribute to the coop to become an owner. A worker who is living pay check to pay check can't save enough money to become an owner. That's probably one of the single largest reasons worker coops don't grow larger.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
No, Commons Capitalism is nothing like Communism.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
In all fairness to other posters, they are trying to understand Commons Capitalism based on their existing knowledge base. It took me some months of realigning my thoughts to understand the basics of Commons Capitalism. And, I'm still learning.

But what's interesting is that realignment in thinking helped me better understand the intrinsic problems of traditional capitalism.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
That's fine. Mondragon has some arrangement for paying in equity. I'm sure most ESOPs do that. The problem with that is valuing the equity payment. The cost of stock valuation can be prohibitively expensive. Plus the worker will pay income taxes. And, still others don't want to be owners; they just want to be workers.

But, all of it begs the question, "Why haven't worker coops taken over the US economy and replaced all those dastardly capitalists?"

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
Agree. Banks are basically equity lenders. They might loan you 70% of the liquidation value of your assets if you go belly up.

1/3

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
I understand the ratioale, but paying dividends to the workers prevents the growth of worker coops.

2/3

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
But my priority in promoting Commons Capitalism is to provide top wages and social benfits to tens of millions of workers, not tens of thousands of workers.

3/3

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
The breadth and depth of the US economy is just staggering. I'm trying to promote an economic system that can replace traditional capitalism. Even then, it would take 75-100 years.

Cirdan, 15 days ago

@dlakelan @GhostOnTheHalfShell
I'm preparing a white paper. I'll try to find a place where I can upload it and provide folks with an address. What I can say is that Commons Capitalism is quite feasible and doesn't need anything exotic to bring it into reality. The biggest problem is exposure of a new concept and educationing people.

Cirdan, 14 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dlakelan
More power to all coops. Hats off to them. Ace Hardware is a retailer's cooperative, not a worker's coop. My concern is to spread wealth throughout communities by giving workers better pay and benefits. Communities as a whole will have better standards of living. Perhaps even poor people will rise out of poverty.

Cirdan, 14 days ago

@GhostOnTheHalfShell
Your discomfort is understandable because Commons Capitalism is a new concept. After 400 years of traditional capitalism, I would be suspicious and distrustful, too.