[p2p-research] In Defense of Worker Ownership

[Alex Rollin]

I see what you are getting at.  I think that your take on it could make
things simpler.  No more stakeholders except users and everyone is a user
all the time for everything.  Period.

Something like that?

A

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:

> Alex Rollin wrote:
> > if the worker is not a consumer, what then?
>
> The worker is guaranteed to be the consumer of *something*, for no
> human can exist unless they consume the outputs of other organisms.
>
> So every worker needs ownership in that which he consumes.
>
> And every non-working 'dependent' also needs ownership in that which
> he consumes.
>
> This ownership protects each human from paying profit and also gives
> him full dominion over that production.
>
> Even more astounding, when a worker (human) has sufficient ownership
> in the Sources of that which he consumes, then the 'problems' of
> abundance and automation disappear.  There is no longer a reason to
> throttle production or destroy product or be afraid of innovation.
>
> So it is true that workers (humans) need ownership, but it is for the
> purpose of consuming, not for the purpose of working.  We don't *need*
> work, we only *need* to consume.
>
>
> Maybe the problem in understanding this concept is that we must
> consider all industries at once.
>
> Within the context of Workers having sufficient ownership in the
> Sources of those things which the *consume*, what reasons are there
> for Workers to have *extra* ownership in Sources simply because they
> possess skills needed to operate those Sources?
>
> Disconnecting Ownership from the Work allows humans to easily choose
> and change occupations without being bound to one course because of
> heavy financial investment.
>
> It is also more likely for us to escape the claws of the bankers since
> the number of humans that consume any product is almost always much
> larger than the number of workers needed in that pursuit.
>
> Let's say I like to milk cows but am allergic to milk.  I don't need
> any ownership in the dairy to successfully work there.  What good
> would it do me?
>
> So I may not be able to consume cow-milk, but we know I must consume
> *something*.
>
> If I like Almond-milk, I need some ownership in a Almond orchard and
> the equipment needed to create that product even if I never work
> there.
>
> My ownership in the orchard will protect me from paying profit and
> will also give me full dominion over what goes into my body.
>
> The workers in the Almond orchard and those who shell and grind/press
> the nuts into milk need only as much ownership in those Sources as
> they have interest in consuming that product.
>
> Ownership in the Sources is vital for Consumers, but is only a
> liability for Workers.
>
> The only value I see in Worker Ownership is the coercive power it
> gives them to stop other potential workers from doing that work for a
> lower wage or to force those Consumers to pay more than real Costs in
> other ways.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100805/670a7619/attachment.html>