Partial Common Ownership: A New Model for Ownership - A new alternative to capitalist private property that addresses scarcity in the small
Partial Common Ownership (PCO) is a flexible template for reconfiguring property relations, which has inspired many of us at RadicalxChange because it opens the door to a different kind of conversation about capitalism.
https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/pco-a-new-model-of-ownership/
If you read their work, they emphasize that the residual rights should belong to a democratic community. The whole idea is to share wealth with communities that help generate it and collectivize property at the community level rather than capitalists owning it. The funds are for facilitating cooperation.
Ancaps are opposed to common ownership.
What does AI have to do with ancap.
Your statement is a genetic logical fallacy.
Describe why you disagree with the proposed structure
@anarchism
Ok, the core of my disagreement is that they are creating a system that needs money (or some form of currency) to function even though we already have techniques to solve those problems on the scale that they are describing them without it.
And ancaps are usually more individualist but some do believe in common property. To me what makes this anarcho-capitalist is that they are making the use of the space still dependent on capital and is impersonal which makes the system exploitative since the person that has the most funds gets to decide on how a space is used.
Edit: grammar
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
As I mentioned in my other comment, there are situations that Ostrom acknowledges where conventional models make sense. We can just take the proposal to be addressing those sorts of larger-scale low interaction communities where agents are relatively autonomous
Your second objection is acknowledged in the article, and the authors actually address it in another article. A solution is not to use money, but rather non-trasnsferable vouchers
@anarchism
Ok maybe it I understood the article incorrectly then. I thought it was trying to setup an economic system within a community with a lot of strong ties already. In that situation I believe this system would be a detriment.
When dealing with inter-community ties I still believe that the system would need to be clarified a bit more to show how the currency wouldn’t be unequally distributed. Even with non-transferable vouchers if the system of distributing them is a meritocracy then it would still lead to some community having an imbalance of power over others. But fundamentally I agree with the article that there is a problem with weak ties between communities and would need different solutions than would work inside of a community.
Edit: grammar
Edit2: Just realized you were the one that described it being able to be used between communities not the article. Brain is slow today.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Yeah, we are using “community” differently. I agree that with strong ties this would be irrelevant. There are degrees of how coordinated actors can be. Capitalism misses that with its false dichotomy of total economic planning as in the firm, and full autonomous action as in the market. What we want is a gradient
The spectrum is:
pure market → large-scale communities with collective ownership using PCO → Ostrom-style CPR → firms
Here is the voucher stuff:
https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-socially-provided-goods-and-the-principal-agent-problem/
@anarchism
To be honest I am still having a bit of trouble understanding what a firm and a pure market is but either way I think the problem that occurs when you scale these interactions to larger communities are informational problems. You start to run into problems relating to Dunbar’s number and how many meaningful relationships you can maintain. That is where elinor ostrom’s method would need to be improved.
However I don’t believe currency would actually help resolve it because it is too detached and doesn’t provide enough information to actually build meaningful relationships between communities and people therefore would still have to deal with the tendency for people to dehumanize/exploit processes that can be turned into numbers.
An alternative that I think was shown (but I’m not sure because I haven’t read the second book) was something from the Monk and Robot series which is a nice solarpunk book that I recently got into. There were instances when a traveling tea monk (therapist with tea) went to a few different communities and “bought” a lot of herbs for their teas and “sold” their services as a tea monk by tapping their phones (which they called something like a box computer or whatever) together.
The thing is that it was never explicitly stated that it that they were exchanging money so I interpreted it as it just being an activity log between the people that are doing the exchange so that if you were doing business with them again you would have a pseudo-memory of your relationship so you can make the decision of whether or not it is worth interacting with them or not.
I liked that solution because it actually is tackling the root of the problem (not being able to build trust with limited memory) and doesn’t have the exploitative nature of regular currency being roped in at all.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
A worker coop is a firm. A pure market is trade between people that have no direct social ties prior.
Weyl’s mechanisms become relevant in larger communities where Elinor Ostrom’s method doesn’t work as well. Currencies can be community oriented by having build in fees that go into the community fund that scale with social distance. They can emphasize a logic of commitment
Capitalism emphasizes the logic of exit to the exclusion of the logic of commitment. This is dehumanizing