• gdog05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you’re implying that a union that makes food will have more power than a union making secondary or luxury goods, well, yeah. You’re totally right that’s exactly what would happen. But, it’s all equal because they both have 873 members.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, even if we accept the premise that all products are inherently equal in value, who is making sure the leadership or the union more generally is acting in good faith?

      I like the general outline, but I’m struggling to envision how it prevents capitalism from working its way into what look to be, from my lay-perspective, proto-corporations.

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was being facetious. I personally don’t feel like that is a workable system. Don’t get me wrong, neither is capitalism at the scale it’s at, especially. I’ve not seen a system that I think would work beyond a state level.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Introducing “value” is already the start of the slippery slope towards capitalism, IMHO.

        Ithink a lot would be already gained if you have a usufruct system of commons.