• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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

    • gdog05@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • gdog05@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.