I've been giving a lot of thought to human infrastructure and how it underlies everything.
Like how all corporations are autocracies only barely constrained by the law and most of those were hard earned and currently being dismantled.
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@susankayequinn The word you might be looking for is "monopoly." As in, the law was changed to encourage monopolies. But monopolies—especially those controlling essential services—are bad for people. They are not even capitalism, they are rentier neo-feudalism.
But that is what we have now, globally. Only most people have not noticed, or realized that the solution is pretty simple. Dismantle, ban, and socialize monopolies.
@8r3n7 I honestly don't think dismantling monopolies goes far enough (although obviously a necessary thing that's recently so egregiously out of hand that it's breaking everything at record pace). I agree rentier neo-feudalism is a symptom of that or at least it couldn't exist without the aggressive monopolization.
And yet...it's really necessary to restructure deeper. I'm not even sure the "monopolies" controlling essential services (say universal healthcare) is bad...but you know better in🇨🇦
@susankayequinn "Monopoly" implies *private* ownership. It's not a monopoly if it is publicly owned. It is "socialized". It exits the marketplace; it does not charge for services—or only marginally. Obviously any organization can be good or bad; socialized services must be managed well, with oversight.
Canada's health care is suffering now, specifically because it has become a two-tier system. Owners of private health care have the ears and wallets of the politicians. Just like the owners of private education, private electricity, water, food, housing, etc.
@8r3n7 ah, yes, with that distinction between public/private, socialized/monopoly.
That's sad to hear about Canada's health care... I thought everyone bought into the same system and people who are "private" are just having to pay out-of-pocket to buy into the public healthcare system. Is that not accurate?
@susankayequinn So, as a non-expert, what I see is an increase in services being reclassified as "elective"—so not covered by public healthcare—and a steep decrease (and/or misuse) of funding. So, wasting money on fancy buildings and other status indicators, while gutting emergency rooms. (And a lot of rich people building special care facilities to get their names on things.) It's all the same strategy as elsewhere, but starting from a different place.
This is creating increased demand and frustration from the public. The goal of those driving these changes is to direct public sentiment towards adding more private options. Some of this comes from investors who own private clinics for "cosmetic" services, but also from those who own businesses that sell medical equipment and services that are bought by doctors and hospitals. They all want to expand, and make more services for-profit. A game of inches.
@susankayequinn As far as I know, no one pays for services that are provided by publicly funded institutions, or doctors who work for the government. But a lot of hospitals are now semi-private, and so offer a mix of services, some of which are covered by public health insurance. Anything paid "out of pocket" goes to private interests, not public coffers.
1 more replies (not shown)
The answer isn't "more regulation" for the corporate autocracy (that's important in the interim) but a radical restructuring: dismantle the autocracy, make the corporation democratic (worker owned/controlled). Don't just beef up worker rights.
One might say "seize the means..." but I'm not
@susankayequinn I think (and sometimes write) about this a lot. I'm the founder of a #workercoop, and I actively promote the idea to others. The difficulty is that worker co-ops tend to be small, and the most problematic corporations, almost by definition, are large. Replacing them with a network of small and medium-sized worker co-ops is easier said than done. Teaming up with #unions is a big step in the right direction, but there are still some large hurdles to clear.
@Steve for sure this is not EASY but yes, what you're saying, the nested coops is the key structure that I think needs to change. Coops are small because they're not socially centered — meaning you're going counter culture by forming a coop and so you've got all kinds of extra battles. The more mainstream coops go (Bcorps are another attempt at this, although also problematic), the more I believe we'll work out the kinks. Transition is massive challenge. But I think we're seeing the *social* chg
@susankayequinn The good news is that we don't have to wait around for politicians to do the right thing (good luck with that) before we get started. The whole point is that it's DIY. The work is hard, but it's OUR work.
B-corps and ESOPs remind me of the old saying "Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly," expect substitute "co-ops" for "UNIX."
@Steve haha yes although I'd add that Bcorps and ESOPs are also just skittish and still wanting to fit into the familiar system.
@susankayequinn True, but the familiar system is the whole problem. I really do think that the means of production should be owned and operated by the workers, in the most direct and concrete sense. I've seen for myself that workers are capable of doing it. That proves (to me, at any rate) that upper management and C-suites are a colossal waste of resources.
1 more replies (not shown)
@susankayequinn make sure you say that "just" pretty loudly, tho. Worker rights are a necessary component in any case, and some folks might hear a "but" :(
@afeinman folks hear what they want, especially on social media... BUT YES you are right, worker rights are necessary. Really HUMAN RIGHTS but our labor rights sure should be part of that.