I think it's very easy to criticize capitalism and greed and generally what's wrong with the world today. The climate is going to hell while billionaires laugh and pay to destroy democracy (or whatever semblance of democracy we have built). The people who will suffer the most did the least to cause climate change. Meanwhile, billionaires are further squeezing not only those in the Global South, but everyone else too.

The picture is bleak.

1/?

So what do we do? Obviously (in my book), the long term answer is that we have to destroy capitalism. As long as rich people stay rich, they will pay and lie and cheat and steal in order to preserve their wealth - we have ample evidence of this.

But capitalism isn't getting destroyed overnight, right? Like, even the most die-hard revolutionary can acknowledge that. So the most salient question, for me, is what we can do in the meantime.

2/?

Well, we can work toward worker empowerment as much as possible within the current system. Unionizing your workplace is working towards socialism. Forming a worker-owned co-op is working towards socialism. Both of these alternatives work towards reducing the influence of billionaires in your workplace. *Yes*, you still have to compete in "the market" (which is often tilted towards the big players), so this isn't a long-term solution.

3/?

But that's where word-of-mouth, organic growth, building community ties, and so much more comes in, right? Like, we're not just trying to beat the billionaires at their own game - we're trying to craft a different kind of society entirely. A kinder society that cares about everyone, that seeks to lift everyone up, that wants to *empower* everyone.

We can't do that by building something that outwardly looks the same as the status quo.

4/?

This often means that e.g. worker-owned co-ops grow slower than traditional corporations which take tons of venture capital. But at the same time, the goal of a worker-owned co-op isn't an "exit" (or a buyout) - it's to establish a long-term presence in the community (physical or virtual). The end goal isn't profit per se - that's just the vehicle that gets us to a better society.

5/?

The same is true for unions as well - often, unionization efforts are met with (illegal) pushback such as firing and worker intimidation. So such efforts often grow slowly and take time. But the end result is something far more durable, something that can withstand the vagaries of management changes and the stock market. Unions build *community* and solidarity, which is what makes them so powerful (and so feared by corporations).

6/?

Fundamentally, worker-owned co-ops and unionized workplaces have a different culture which prioritizes the worker (worker safety, job security, benefits, etc) over short-term profits. And the point is that that kind of culture is hard to build in a space where it doesn't already exist.

7/?

The reason I am saying all of this is that one of the arguments I hear against worker-owned co-ops is that there aren't really any big ones. But what if the goal *isn't* to be massive enough to compete with the Sprouts, Krogers, Whole Foods, etc of the world? What if there is a fundamentally different goal? And what if that's a *better* goal for the future of the planet and our societies?

8/?

I thought about all of this because it's clear that something like @coopartisans grows organically, through members reaching out to others (especially artisans). There's no VC behind it - it was funded by artisans and supporters, that's it. This means that the co-op only answers to artisan and supporting members. This model is *hard* to get off the ground and *hard* to grow.

9/?

It's one of the reasons I look initially at @coopartisans before looking elsewhere if it's the kind of thing I might find there - the more people buy from there, the more this business model becomes viable and the more artisans join the co-op (and there is already a huge breadth of items on there!).

10/?

It's easy to feel down given the state of everything. Amazon and Etsy have undergone enshittification, yet they still reign (especially Etsy) when it comes to where people look for handicrafts. But there *is* a better way.

If you fancy yourself an anticapitalist or an anarchist or a socialist or a marxist or a communist or any other flavor of leftist, *you should be joining Artisans Coop*, at the very least as a supporting member.

11/?

Obviously, it's different if you literally can't afford it. But all too often, the people making that argument aren't the ones who can't actually afford it (the people who can't will apologize saying money's really tight, which is totally understandable!).

Hate Amazon? Join Artisans Coop. Hate Etsy? Join Artisans Coop. Hate billionaires? Join Artisans Coop. Hate capitalism? Join Artisans Coop.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer.

12/12

@chiraag

Step 1; do you respect the right of people to own property?

@AlexanderKingsbury Ah, a libertarian.

1. Don't hijack my thread.
2. Look up enclosure, where the commons was *forcefully* (quite literally) seized by wealthy assholes in order to claw back control from former serfs after the Black Death killed off so many people that serfs got a lot more bargaining power (oh, the horror!).
3. Don't hijack my thread.

@chiraag

Yes, I'm a libertarian. I hardly imagine it's "hijacking" to ask a simple question. I'm aware of enclosure. If you ever feel like actually answering, I'll be waiting.

@AlexanderKingsbury Given that the whole concept of private property was invented in order to lock out serfs from the commons, I guess what I want to know is: why would you, as a libertarian who supposedly cares about freedom, want to uphold a system that was created in order to suppress actions that were liberating serfs from their bondage?

@AlexanderKingsbury Is it moral to be able to own land when people are homeless? I'd argue that it is not, and that we should disincentivize such actions as a society. Is it moral to be able to hoard food when people are starving? I'd argue not (and we should disincentivize it).

If your conception of private property doesn't allow for a right to shelter, food, etc when those things exist, I'd say your conception of such is flawed.

@chiraag

You're adding things in to the scenario (homelessness, hunger), and then answering your own, artificially narrowed question.

@AlexanderKingsbury I mean, those things exist. I'm not adding anything, just acknowledging that there is a tradeoff with saying there is a 'right' to own (and exploit) the means of production.

@chiraag

Yes, you are adding things to the question. I asked a very simple, straightforward question, and you added those parameters on to it. Of course there are tradeoffs.

@AlexanderKingsbury Do I support a right to personal property? Sure, within reason. Do I support a right to private property (enclosure of the commons)? No.

@chiraag

So you deny the right of someone to own, say, the land their home is on?

@AlexanderKingsbury I would say that it *might* be possible, sure (depending on the housing situation overall), but certainly not more than one home. Again, personal property rights within reason covers that (I presume you know the difference between personal property and private property).

@chiraag

So, you might support it. Or you might not. Please feel free to let me know when you decide one way or another.

@AlexanderKingsbury
1. Seems like you absolutely derailed the original thread (did you even read it?).
2. I made it clear that it's contingent on prioritizing housing-first (so no land speculation).

I would kindly ask you to go JAQ off elsewhere.

@chiraag

1. Yes, I read it. I imagined you might be interested in honest conversation.

2. You may have tried to make that clear.

But thank you for making it very clear whether or not you are actually interested in honest conversation.

@AlexanderKingsbury If you read the thread, you would have seen that your comment is tangential and completely off-topic.

I don't mind having this discussion, but not on this thread. You don't seem to understand that. At all.

@chiraag

I understand that you seem more interested in crudity than honesty. Please feel free to drop me a line if that ever changes. Good day.

@chiraag

Because that's not why it was created. Many people recognized and respected the right of people to own property long before that happened. Particularly if you're willing to look at economic history outside of Europe.

@AlexanderKingsbury Historically, things were owned in common (if there was a concept of "ownership" at all).

@chiraag

Historically, things were owned in common...except when they weren't, which was the case in many places all over the world, and at many times throughout history.

@AlexanderKingsbury My basic point is that our conception of property rights *very much* derives from the violent expropriation of the commons by people who wanted to remain at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. And by "our", I mean the world at large because many (non-European) countries' property rights derive from laws in place from colonial times.

@chiraag

Eh, very common claims. But, to me, irrelevant. The original intent of something often means little when it comes to the actual results of it, or the reasons someone might support it. Federal minimum wage was openly established to favor predominantly white, northern contractors over predominantly black, southern contractors; does that mean that anyone who supports federal minimum wage is racist?

@AlexanderKingsbury A very common claim from capitalism supporters is that it's "natural". The fact that enclosure was a violent, forced process should violate everything you claim to stand for, and it should give you pause that a bedrock of your philosophy was extremely violent and forced.