What if people cannot find any other work, as can certainly be the case? Because people obviously have to meet very rigid, often irrational standards sometime sto be employed. Co-ops are intended to be much more open than the more hierarchical workplaces.
In a co-op people can ponder why, if their jobs are harder, they get paid less.
This kind of thinking will be seen as a thought crime under capitalist practices.
H
I don't think I've misunderstood. In just about any system, people will be living off productive people. I point this out, not as a philosopher or whatnot, but as an observer. Now, there are different systems we can have--ones where people are made to feel like machines and little more or ones where people have a greater voice.
Assertion is not proof. The producers ultimately control production. Things can be produced that hardly anyone buys. What consumers want is based on projection--it cannot be measured with complete accuracy.
Few consumers actually choose to close a business down because they didn't buy something from it. And not every place shut down deserves it, in my view. Not every restaurant, for example, that gets shut down served lousy food. These are generally market forces choosing to do close things down, be they banks, governments, private investors, etc. There are, of course, boycotts in existence and people who lobby to close down certain businesses, but they are outside of your theory of pure buying power. The so-called capitalist countries and the state communist countries have one thing in common--force. I am not saying co-ops do not currently interact with currency and the overall global economy--that is merely unavoidable in most ways. And, as I've said, dollars are not very democratic. Democracy entails one-person-one-vote. Obviously, if one has more money he/she has more votes.
So who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc.
who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc.
To say these factors are not all involved with relative equality contradicts reality.
I cannot motivate myself to believe consumers are the supreme voice when the decision itself is made mostly by bankers and private investors (or by NAFTA, the WTO, etc.)
The only way consumers and workers can make significant changes is by direct action.
Saying that people absolutely need such information is like saying soldiers have to die. The only thing mandating anything is force of one type or another. People can actually operate on a loss, so long as people in banks or the government allow them to do so.
If you need to determine if this is really possible, ask yourself if people typically want to have their business liquidated and who ultimately will take action against the business. Have I ever joined with other consumers and went to a business and made them close because we simply haven't bought their product? I've never done that, and it's a highly unlikely (and obnoxious) scenario.
This is not to say people shouldn't do research, but that it is not an absolute requirement that people be punished for failing at something.
Production will always go forth, with or without rhyme and reason. Because rhyme and reason is subjective. People will sometimes fail, but I personally don't think we should make others fail, as I don't see why we should want others to do so for us.
How will people work together? Look at the case studies and the stated principles:
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/fra/case.html http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/i_pages/prin.html
It's not especially hard to see how people would work together in them, as they are open to mass participation and interlinkage.
As for a rationale for making decisions, the question is no different for a co-op than it is for a more authoritative business. But it ultimately depends on the people involved, as it does anywhere else.
You are exaggerating the dilemma. If people see a need for something they can join or start a co-op for that purpose. Now there is work involved, as any activity involves work, but, in my view, work should confront its own questions and not have challenges imposed upon it by abstract considerations driven by force (market forces).
Grandpa h.