Here's a question for the #SocialCoop hive mind: What are we?
Helping to start Social.coop initially was my first experiment in what I was calling "virtual co-ops" (https://www.colorado.edu/lab/medlab/sites/default/files/attached-files/virtualcoop.pdf): internet-first co-ops not requiring legal incorporation.
Now, I'm starting experiment #2, this time with a worker co-op, also hosted on Open Collective.
What are we? Does it need a name?
* Virtual Co-op?
* Hosted Co-op?
* Fiat DAO?
It seems like you're emphasizing the "doesn't need a legal structure" part in your description, which might be relevant in a particular taxonomy (personally the legal bits are the parts that interest me the least about social.coop and other coops).
The main idea for me is to create frameworks so that it's as easy to create a co-op online as it is to start a FB group or whatever. So that co-op can be the default mode of online community. Bypassing legal structure is just a means to that end.
@Matt_Noyes @anaulin @bhaugen @emi @mattcropp @michaelafisher @beckett Obviously creating a worthwhile coop is as hard as always, just as creating a vibrant online community of any kind is hard. The difference is that, rather than the default for those communities being oligarchy, it would be democracy.
This might mean less upfront study and more experimentation, but there would still be lots of learning in the process of building.
I wonder if commons is more the idea than co-op; that is, you want people to use the resource (platform, site, whatever) as a commons, without making assumptions about how or if users will participate in governance, admin, etc. @mike_hales
Commons as the root construct gets my vote over democracy, every time. Commoning is revolution and making and bricolage, not just debate. Self-aware, visible governance & admin (aka care work) are basic for a (modern) commons to be viable? And the perfoming of the mobilising of the commons is not a free-for all, is under governance, skilful, full of thought.
Way beyond a usual (individualist) reading of democracy?
@anaulin @ntnsndr @bhaugen @emi @mattcropp @michaelafisher @beckett
I just don't feel that 'democratic' is a sound framing, even though it has a popular rhetoric and a history. Kinda 19th century, behind the times, pre-Freudian, etc etc.
Seems to me that 'a commons' (actually, a stack of commons, or a commons-of-commons) is so much bigger and more radical and a more materialist/productionist/constructivist principle. Socialism and cooperation for the pluriversal 21st century.
@Matt_Noyes @anaulin @ntnsndr @emi @mattcropp @michaelafisher @beckett
Also, how would a food commons woek? I can imagine a permaculture commons or maybe a solawi but some parts of provisioning the community leave several questions to be answered.
I am interested in the answers and am thinking about how to analyze all the flows in a regional agroecology food system in some detail.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.