this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
706 points (84.2% liked)

Memes

45398 readers
1719 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
706
eat the rich (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by ThunderChunk@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

It's a meme

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jlou@mastodon.social 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Worker coops are better ethically not just based on opinion. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. By the usual ethical principle that legal responsibility should be assigned to the de facto responsible party, the workers should jointly be legally responsible for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs.

  1. Worker coops can fire people.
  2. Worker coops can charge initial membership fee when a new worker joins.
[–] Devouring@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren't important. This idea that people can't be fired is just ridiculous.

Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I never said that people couldn't get fired.

The incompetent relative example seems to be a problem with nepotism

[–] Devouring@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. It's a nepotism problem. I'm just drawing the picture that removing money from the picture basically makes relationships the new currency. It's basically how life used to be a long time ago, and those who were closer to the leader got better jobs with perks. People will always find a way to benefit and will centralize power eventually. I can't say much about hypotheticals and whether your coop will fix that, but in my opinion, history suggests that we'll just end up with a new system of power.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I never said anything about removing money.

What you are talking about is called social capital accumulation, which is a problem in any system.

A justification for worker coops is the moral principle of assigning legal responsibility to the de facto responsible party. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer receives 100% of the legal responsibility despite the employee being inextricably co-responsible. This violates the aforementioned principle

[–] Devouring@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Well, I don't think you can use written laws to fight human plans to centralize power. I guess our current system is proof of that. People will always find a way to centralize that power to benefit themselves and their groups.

But anyway. I guess we're getting into a dead end. This is becoming opinion stuff at this point, whether this will work. I'll have to think more about this stuff.