I've just read this article with interest and I thought I would share it:
If you don’t like corporate capitalism and you don’t like state socialism, what the hell do you want, and why should we listen to you if you don’t know? Seriously: what do you want? And if you don’t know, what are you talking about?
I have just given you a design principle for a radically decentralized community-building cooperative system. Were you to apply this principle—substantial stability of community markets in a community-sustaining system—linking worker ownership to a design of this kind, you would have a design that doesn’t look like corporate capitalism and doesn’t look like state socialism but begins with community as the dominant principle and works backward from there.
I would argue that there are no bad ideas... try them all, let natural selection weed them out.
Have a ball, as long as participation is not coerced... then it's nobody else's business.
The moment you suggest coerced participation, you're wrong.
If your idea is based on coerced participation... then your whole idea is wrong.
The economy exists within the private sector.
"Managing" the economy, is not a legitimate function of Government.
In the U.S. anyway, we explicitly did not create a government to dictate the terms of our individual financial interactions. Economically: our Congress has a duty to regulate Interstate commerce, and the value of the national currency... and that's it.
With that in mind, and instead of trying to devise a system, based on what we don't want it to look like; why don't we focus on what we do want it to look like... and try to keep that discussion constrained within the context of what we have a right to dictate to others in the first place?
You (and I) do not have any right to dictate the terms of any transaction between any two-or-more other people, or "legal entities".
If any particular matter is really, really important... in your view... then you still don't have that right.
Your opinion about what's important does not give you any extra rights; that's not where rights come from.
Using the Force of Government to impose your priorities on others, where you have no right to do so, is called "Tyranny"... nothing more "noble" than that, no matter how good your intentions.
The only economic approach that does not violate that simple principle, is a "Free Market".
That does not mean "no regulations". Corporations don't have any right to violate your natural rights, any more than any individual does. In the hypothetical event that existing law is insufficient to protect your rights from the Corporation, then specific regulation would be appropriate to establish that protection.
That does not, however, mean that you have some imaginary right to be protected from your own recklessness, ignorance, gullibility, or timid reluctance to stand up for yourself at work or in the marketplace.
If you feel out-gunned by the big, evil corporation... you're free to do whatever you can dream up to mitigate that perceived imbalance.
Just do it in the private sector. That's not what Government is for.
There’s an awful lot here about “Co-Operatives” and that might sound great but, its been my experience over the years, that Co-Operatives simply don’t “Co-Operate”.
Not often within themselves and almost never among themselves.
What seems to be the biggest hurdle is that even the “Best” of them ... the “Best” Ideas ... the “Best” Situations ... refuse to Agree ... Acknowledge ... even Consider ... a Unity of Purpose ... and that’s among Co-Operatives that are Topically Similar in Nature.
When you get to the concept of “Co-Operatives” that are Not Topically Similar in Nature (say Agriculture and Energy) I rarely see anything that even approaches Cooperation.
Please note I use “Co-Operative” and “Co-Operate” deliberately to make a point.
I do not begrudge the innovative, the hard-working, the creative (and let's face it, the fortunate) their having more money than the average individual, but they also must pay their fair share of the services provided by government. Why could one person in a family in the 1950s make enough to take care of all the members allowing one adult to provide constant care to children and manage the complex needs of the household, and today not able to make ends meet with both adults working multiple jobs? The fact that the large majority of people have lost significant money during the pandemic, and the wealthiest have increased their wealth by 400 billion dollars is proof enough of the present inequity.
To be honest, there is a difference between capitalism, a straw-man invented by Marx, and free enterprise, the economic system that destroyed European feudalism. In capitalism the lords and ladies are replaced by the capitalists who serve the same parasitic function. Either capitalism or feudalism leads to economic and political tyranny. Free enterprise, on the other hand, puts everyone in the marketplace on an equal footing, allowing the free exchange of goods and services to ensure an equitable distribution of wealth based on the amount of effort each individual is willing to invest in it. Just as there are checks and balances built into the Constitution of the United States to protect from political tyranny by the government, there ought to be checks and balances built into the marketplace to protect from economic tyranny by the corporations who have gathered wealth to themselves.