[p2p-research] Capital Club

[Josef Davies-Coates]

On 10/03/2008, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think all this talk of profit/ economics etc. is a distraction
> (certainly
> > for the average person on the street - they don't care about nor need to
> > understand this stuff)
>
> Are you saying we all already know how to understand economics and how
> to treat profit?



No, I was just saying that people don't need to understand economics and how
to treat profit in order to participate in (or even initiate) news systems.

Like Sam, I'm less interested in discussing economics (did enough of that at
LSE and since) and more interested in practical experiments and projects.

Personally I think the most basic assumptions of economics (e.g. that humans
are all greedy short-term selfish thinkers and actors) are idiotic and
therefore it is not at all surprising that present day mainstream economists
come up with idiotic systems and solutions.


> > Cooperative consumer ownership is quite rare today
> >
> > Thankfully not that rare (in fact, co-ops globally employ far more
> people
> > than multinationals) and there is a massively growing amount of
> > co-operatives at the moment (especially in Latin America) :)
>
>
> I said "CONSUMER ownership".
>
> Nearly every coop you are talking about is owned by the people that
> happen to have the skills to operate that Capital, NOT by the
> consumers in need of those products.



That is not actually true.

By far the biggest Co-op in the world is the UK's Co-operative Group that is
a consumer co-op owned by its customers. It has a turnover of over £9billion
a year and grew out of people getting together to  bulk buy food together.
Sadly the Co-op isn't anywhere as radical as it could be (and most members
and workers don't actually feel empowered in any meaningful way)

Also, in the US and Ireland for example, by far the most popular form of
co-op (in terms of the number of members they've got) are Credit Unions, not
workers co-ops.


> (BTW, I don't personally believe in either consumer nor worker ownership.
> I
> > believe in stakeholder ownership -- e.g. consumers AND workers AND
> suppliers
> > etc - anyone who contributes or is effected).
>
> Beliefs are unimportant.  The only thing that matters is truth.



OK, so perhaps believe wasn't the right word to use. I don't think truth is
either.

There are no absolute truths.  At least that is my take on it.

And even if there are theoretical truths, theory is a distant cousin of
practice.


I agree a person may contribute with either money or work or maybe in
> other ways depending on what the current owners of that organization
> allow.  But that the worker PAYING the owners.
>
> My (not careful enough) use of the term "Worker" has described a
> worker being PAID by the owners.
>
> I have found it very difficult to communicate this, so will try to be
> more careful right now:
>
> I have been using the term "Worker" to indicate someone (whether an
> owner or not) that is BEING PAID by an owner, but is not a consumer of
> that exact production.
>
> Another valid use of the term "Worker" is a consumer who is PAYING his
> part of 'rent' or 'tax' to the other collective owners for one of the
> costs of production that he owes to that group.
>
> The collecitve owners of a tractor must collect payments from each of
> the individual owners for the real, recurring costs of that ownership.
>   One of those costs is, for instance, changing the oil and filters.
> If one of the individual owners PAYS that cost by performing that
> Work, then it is true that you might call him a "Worker", but more
> importantly he is a Consumer of the outputs of that Capital.
>
> Would you want someone who is being PAID to work on the tractor
> (whether the person is already one of the collective owners or not) to
> gain ownership over that tractor?
>
> What if you PAID someone to fix your plumbing, should they gain
> partial ownership of your house?  Should a mechanic gain ownership of
> your car?  Should your dentist gain ownership of your mouth?



Heh, nice examples :)

I don't think the plumber should gain partial ownership of the house, no.

At least not directly.

But they should be partial owners of the land the house is on and the house
owner should be paying ground rent for the land the house occupies into a
community fund that is distributed as a basic income. Or something like that
anyway :)


> The most common version of this is of course Housing Co-operatives.
> >
> > I live in London's longest running Housing Co-op (
> http://www.sanford.coop )
> > and benefit from ridiculously cheap (compared to the rest of London)
> rent
> > (less than £50 a week including all bills, council tax and broadband)
> > because there is no landlord taking away profit - collectively we are
> our
> > own landlord and effectively pay ourselves rent.
>
>
> I am happy that something approaching consumer ownership exists.
>
> I want to give another comparison of the two meanings of "Worker" for
> this example, and ask if you can see the difference.
>
> If a resident is PAYING the collective owners for some of his rent
> through Work (say painting the building), then we might call him a
> Worker.  But it is because he is a Consumer (because of his occupancy)
> that he should have ownership, not because he incidentally made his
> rent payments in that manner.
>
> But when a person (maybe even a resident) is PAID by the collective
> owners to paint the building, do you think he should receive ownership
> and therefore vote weight over that building?  If yes, then why?  If
> no, then I agree.



Yes, as Sam has similarly said, I think we agree about theory and how we'd
like to see things set-up. Let's set things up and see how we go :)


> Moreover, our ridiculously cheap rent is actually more than our costs.
> > There, when I moved in a couple of years ago we had amassed a surplus of
> > over £500,000!
> >
> > This has recently been spent on the Carbon 60 project (an effort to
> reduce
> > our Carbon emissions by 60%) and we've become the first whole street in
> the
> > UK to ecorefurbish (we've not got cavity wall and loft insulation plus
> solar
> > water and woodchip boilers for hot water and heating)
>
>
> That's nice I suppose, but it makes me think of my lack of control in
> city government.  What if a resident didn't want their portion of that
> money to go to the "Carbon 60 project"?  Do they have *DIVISIBLE*
> control?  Since money is trivially divisible, shouldn't each of the
> residents be allowed to decide where the money goes?  Maybe it is best
> the minority not be able to fork in that way?



Sanford has no set way to deal with these issues and tends to deal with them
on an ad hoc basis.

In the case of the "Carbon 60 project" majority agreement was sought and
gained a number of times but that isn't the kind of divisible control you're
talking about.

However, as part of the project we're getting all our kitchens re-done and
one house has decided it wants to do its own kitchen.

They put together a some good designs and a decent plan and now have simply
been allocated the same amount of money that was going to be spent of their
kitchen as a budget to manage themselves.

In another recent case some members argued against the Co-op giving a £1000
budget to the Permaculture group to build some quality raised beds to grow
food in on the basis that they wont provide enough food for everyone - "Why
should we contribute towards something we're not going to benefit from?"

Other members quickly pointed out it was just a start etc. but also that not
everyone benefits from the plays the theatre group put on, nor even the
annual street party but they both get budgets. The Permaculture group got
the money and we've not got some fantastic raised beds :)

Smiles,

Josef.

-- 
Josef Davies-Coates
07974 88 88 95
http://uniteddiversity.com
Together We Have Everything
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080319/b428b2db/attachment.html