It kind of sounds like a confederacy. Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top, so what you’re advocating for is a confederation of smaller governing bodies, yes?
Also, this isn’t a gotcha, but how would you ensure certain unions don’t take advantage of their market position? Would there still be national regulatory bodies?
I think you’re imagining these unions to be bigger than what they would be. A library economy is where all nonperishable goods are exchanged at a library. There’s no market to be positioned in. Each union represents their workplace, and these unions coordinate their production to meet the mutual needs of both communities. The unions have a very narrow scope, limited to what the workers produce and have the right of free association. The work needed to protect the environment would be managed by the entire community based on their ability to do so.
I guess I don’t understand how they wouldn’t grow to large size. And I still don’t understand what oversight ensures the Library(s) has safe goods (since history has shown that some people are cut from selfish cloth).
Is there anything I can read to learn more about your position? I don’t think I grasp it from your short explanation
If you’re implying that a union that makes food will have more power than a union making secondary or luxury goods, well, yeah. You’re totally right that’s exactly what would happen. But, it’s all equal because they both have 873 members.
I mean, even if we accept the premise that all products are inherently equal in value, who is making sure the leadership or the union more generally is acting in good faith?
I like the general outline, but I’m struggling to envision how it prevents capitalism from working its way into what look to be, from my lay-perspective, proto-corporations.
I was being facetious. I personally don’t feel like that is a workable system. Don’t get me wrong, neither is capitalism at the scale it’s at, especially. I’ve not seen a system that I think would work beyond a state level.
It kind of sounds like a confederacy. Also, each union would have its leadership with someone or a few at the top, so what you’re advocating for is a confederation of smaller governing bodies, yes?
Also, this isn’t a gotcha, but how would you ensure certain unions don’t take advantage of their market position? Would there still be national regulatory bodies?
Ideally, there wouldn’t be someone like a representative or president at the top
I think you’re imagining these unions to be bigger than what they would be. A library economy is where all nonperishable goods are exchanged at a library. There’s no market to be positioned in. Each union represents their workplace, and these unions coordinate their production to meet the mutual needs of both communities. The unions have a very narrow scope, limited to what the workers produce and have the right of free association. The work needed to protect the environment would be managed by the entire community based on their ability to do so.
I guess I don’t understand how they wouldn’t grow to large size. And I still don’t understand what oversight ensures the Library(s) has safe goods (since history has shown that some people are cut from selfish cloth).
Is there anything I can read to learn more about your position? I don’t think I grasp it from your short explanation
The podcast SRSLY Wrong is a strong advocate for the idea. You can find episodes on library socialism on the bottom of the page.
If you’re implying that a union that makes food will have more power than a union making secondary or luxury goods, well, yeah. You’re totally right that’s exactly what would happen. But, it’s all equal because they both have 873 members.
I mean, even if we accept the premise that all products are inherently equal in value, who is making sure the leadership or the union more generally is acting in good faith?
I like the general outline, but I’m struggling to envision how it prevents capitalism from working its way into what look to be, from my lay-perspective, proto-corporations.
Introducing “value” is already the start of the slippery slope towards capitalism, IMHO.
Ithink a lot would be already gained if you have a usufruct system of commons.
I was being facetious. I personally don’t feel like that is a workable system. Don’t get me wrong, neither is capitalism at the scale it’s at, especially. I’ve not seen a system that I think would work beyond a state level.