@richdecibels It's an interesting read, and I agree with some things, like the observation that in neoliberalism there is a gap between the diad and the masses, whereas social science tells us there is the squad and the clan of about 7 or 150 individuals. I also agree that designing for small scale is a good idea. This if why I design for less than ten members on #freedombone and am often complaining about megaservers with thousands of users. They may be technically feasible but they're socially unsound. Where I start disagreeing with the article is the idea that you can outcompete consumer capitalism on its own terms using a with/for profit model. I highly doubt that will work.
@bob @richdecibels The problem there with the assumption that you can outcompete consumerism IMO is that they assume they're playing on an idealized capitalist battlefield where everyone is playing fair.  That's capitalism's chief deficiency - its ideal requires all the actors to be playing fairly for the ideal outcome.  And yeah, name me any big corporation that can at all be said to play fair, these days.
@maiyannah @richdecibels

The classical economists didn't really assume that capitalists played fairly. They were much more Hobbsian. For Adam Smith there is the famous "invisible hand" which has a negative feedback effect upon what would otherwise be a dirty fight to the death between rival firms. The invisible hand means that there is nobody setting the rules, but that needs nevertheless somehow get met via a market equilibrium.

Marx also didn't assume that capitalists played fairly, either with workers or between themselves.

To extract the maximum amount of value capitalism always has an atomizing effect, breaking up feudal clans, artisan guilds and proto-union combinations. The proposed squad level organization will be less efficient at value extraction, so trying to compete on the same ground will always be a losing proposition.

You can think of it as the extra value created by operating as a squad sized team is value which would otherwise be appropriated in a more conventional employer-employee relation.
@bob @richdecibels The base assumption is that if companies use bad practices they would be punished by consumers by not buying their products.  One need not look far in ANY of the spaces Im even tangentially related to, to know this rarely actually happens.  People still buy Microsoft products.  Games can be released non-functional and loaded with exploitative gambling mechanics and people will still buy them.
@maiyannah @bob @richdecibels Well if we're going fundamental the base assumption is that humans are rational actors.
@maiyannah @richdecibels That was the assumption of the classical liberals. But by the late 19th and early 20th century it was becoming increasingly apparent that Smith's invisible hand idea...didn't exactly work out. There was no equilibrium. Firms were becoming increasingly monopolistic.

The solution was state regulation and state capitalism, but now I think we're at the tail end of the whole neoliberal thing and back to the problem of robber barons.

@richdecibels If you agree Richard, maybe we could work on a french translation of your brillant article with @mcpaccard and publish it via @commonfutures Medium?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here