วีดีโอ

With very specialized work that 1/2,1/4 ratio isnt going to scale. You simply just wouldn't be able to charge enough to attract the people in a specialized space. I think 7:1 is the upper bound though. Neuro-surgeon with private practice getting paid 1 mill a year, the front desk is getting paid $250k (1/4th). You could pull it off for a small scale but you couldn't bill enough to attract more surgeons. You could pull it off at 1/7th ($140k for front desk) though and go after the high end. The main point is the current 250X to 1 upper bound is a problem.

@@VulkCoop Thanks for the response! I completely missed the obvious variable with specialized/skilled work, and I know that pain personally in these situations as a teammate, offering up both highly-valuable work and unskilled labor at minimum wage or even pro bono. Then again, those situations were strictly limited to getting operations moving in the beginning, with a personal cutoff deadline for expecting a return or just leaving, I consider it an investment, and everyone helping to get things off the ground with work are investors, not just the VC or whomever is actually laying down funds. Just in general terms, outside of co-ops, we all know that startups have appx 1/10 success rate, so after a few attempts, it does get tiring, especially in cases where a lot of the initial investment went towards liquid assets like equipment or furniture or what have you, rather than paying the team and partners fairly to keep morale high.

I think we ran out of time!

@@VulkCoop ?

Thanks a bunch! I often wonder how it took me so long to find Ostrom myself.

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks for the comment! Yes this book references MK Ultra as a major incentive for the safeguards around psychological experimentation that were provoked by U.S. Congress in the 70s

Definitely. Put yourself behind the veil of ignorance and imagine you don't know how you will be born etc. What kind of world, with what kind of rights, would you create?

www.mindomo.com/mindmap/f36e67d4c3514821948389a103915e1b

Glad it was helpful!

cooperation = intelligence

@@alfiecdyson yes.... all is equal.

Glad it was helpful!

Hmm well in small groups, the theory doesn't apply. So then you could combine this with federations, like how Kropotkin says in the Mutual Aid book, and probably resist a lot of these problems.

What kind of debates are you looking for?

@@VulkCoop idealism vs materialism? Like to me this seems like another attempt at something like michael alberts participatory economics. And I think Rosa Luxemburg explains why those orgs fail perfectly in ch 7 of reform and revolution; Co-operatives - especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange. But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital - that is, pitiless exploitation - becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur - a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving. Bernstein has himself taken note of these facts. But it is evident that he has not understood them. For, together with Mrs. Potter-Webb, he explains the failure of production co-operatives in England by their lack of “discipline.” But what is so superficially and flatly called here “discipline” is nothing else than the natural absolutist regime of capitalism, which it is plain, the workers cannot successfully use against themselves. Producers’ co-operatives can survive within capitalist economy only if they manage to suppress, by means of some detour, the capitalist controlled contradictions between the mode of production and the mode of exchange. And they can accomplish this only by removing themselves artificially from the influence of the laws of free competition. And they can succeed in doing the last only when they assure themselves beforehand of a constant circle of consumers, that is, when they assure themselves of a constant market. It is the consumers’ co-operative that can offer this service to its brother in the field of production. Here - and not in Oppenheimer’s distinction between co-operatives that produce and co-operatives that sell - is the secret sought by Bernstein: the explanation for the invariable failure of producers’ co-operatives functioning independently and their survival when they are backed by consumers’ organisations. If it is true that the possibilities of existence of producers’ co-operatives within capitalism are bound up with the possibilities of existence of consumers’ co-operatives, then the scope of the former is limited, in the most favourable of cases, to the small local market and to the manufacture of articles serving immediate needs, especially food products. Consumers’ and therefore producers’ co-operatives, are excluded from the most important branches of capital production - the textile, mining, metallurgical and petroleum industries, machine construction, locomotive and ship-building. For this reason alone (forgetting for the moment their hybrid character), co-operatives in the field of production cannot be seriously considered as the instrument of a general social transformation. The establishment of producers’ co-operatives on a wide scale would suppose, first of all, the suppression of the world market, the breaking up of the present world economy into small local spheres of production and exchange. The highly developed, wide-spread capitalism of our time is expected to fall back to the merchant economy of the Middle Ages. Within the framework of present society, producers’ co-operatives are limited to the role of simple annexes to consumers’ co-operatives. It appears, therefore, that the latter must be the beginning of the proposed social change. But this way the expected reform of society by means of co-operatives ceases to be an offensive against capitalist production. That is, it ceases to be an attack against the principal bases of capitalist economy. It becomes, instead, a struggle against commercial capital, especially small and middle-sized commercial capital. It becomes an attack made on the twigs of the capitalist tree.

@@NS-xu2hh "Consumers’ and therefore producers’ co-operatives, are excluded from the most important branches of capital production - the textile, mining, metallurgical and petroleum industries, machine construction, locomotive and ship-building" << Can you think of a good reason why a professional services firm, especially one that develops software, should not be a cooperative? Lets start there. Then we can move from "should not" to "will not". I welcome a discussion about software cooperatives.

www.mindomo.com/mindmap/d2ad08b5148640b3aef881fa8354f4e3

My pleasure! What else would you like to see summarized?

Glad you enjoyed it!

Have to choose the words carefully if we are going to stay "legitimate"! :|

Thank you!

Glad you like it!

Al menos los grupos pequeños aún pueden beneficiarse de la acción colectiva en este modelo.

Here's the recording for Part 1: th-cam.com/video/BR0Lzt8VN5k/w-d-xo.html

Thanks for your feedback! We've updated the description with the link to Part 1.

Hi Lexis. I'll be sure to put it on the list of books we will review!

You are very welcome! If you have other ideas on videos, let me know!

Hi @arizjoe. Public health is a public good but not an exclusive public good. The logic of collective action applies to exclusive public goods (where if one person consumes it, other's can't partake). I don't think the logic of collection action limits network effect goods (where the value actually increases to all when more people partake). What do you think?

@@VulkCoop Thank you for the clarification. I am a well educated individual. However, I did not know that collective action theory applies to exclusive public goods. I am searching for a method to nudge people in the U.S. into using masks, etc, to avoid becoming vectors of transmission. The reservoir of the virus is a collective. And if that parasite does not have a host it leaves a population.

@Kazuki yes this book does highlight market societies quite well. We are reviewing the Tyranny of Merit, same author, next meetup: Check www.meetup.com/Austin-Software-Co-operatives/ to sign up

www.mindomo.com/mindmap/706ba66884964395980e454ee026d3ad << There you go

My pleasure!

Nice try buddy :)

Same as lisp! See the end

Explain? I disagree with your statement

According to Zizek/Lacan, there are no healthy groups. Most people are neurotic.