Illusjonen om å eie sin egen arbeidsplass

Les artikkelen kommentaren er knyttet til her.

Jeg tror også at majoriteten av disse 30.000 har valgt å eie sin egen arbeidsplass fordi de ønsker å ha innflytelse i eget liv. Dessverre er dette en illusjon, da det er korporasjonene i samarbeid med politikerne som legger rammeverket for næringslivet, og disse bryr seg katta hverken om småbedrifter eller kooperativer (ekte kooperativer, for all del ikke COOP).

Derfor er det like greit at vi organiserer økonomien gjennom et selveierdemokrati, dvs. IGD (InnGruppe-Demokratiet). Slik ville alle få REELL innflytelse over egen arbeidsplass. Dette ville også vært meget bedre for de 30.000 stakkarene som eier sin egen arbeidsplass, men som stort sett arbeider vettet av seg for å beholde sin innbilte frihet.

«Many critics of Piketty’s book have pointed out that the surest path to reversing inequality within countries is through strategies that create a better distribution of capital in the first instance, rather than relying on top-down, quick-fix and state-centric strategies afterwards.[4] In other words, it’s more effective to address the distribution of wealth at its source, including through changes in institutions and policies to make pre-tax income distribution less unequal.

If de-growth on a global level is inevitable sooner or later – and there is enough evidence to suggest that it is – then the implications go far beyond Piketty’s solutions for how we can achieve a just and sustainable world.[10] When the pie cannot be grown any larger to share it out, much more serious questions of distribution arise given the planetary boundaries that economies are already hitting hard.[11] As succinctly put by Herman Daly: “is not the solution to poverty to be found in sharing now, rather than in the empty promise of growth in the future?”[12]»

This will inevitably demand the collective organisation of labour, the protection of workers’ rights, and new ways for capital to be owned broadly by the populace – such as a dramatic ramping up of participatory ownership through cooperatives.[5] These people-driven solutions point towards the shifts in power that are needed to create truly egalitarian societies, although this is a subject that Piketty leaves largely unaddressed. 

By far the greatest blind side to Piketty’s analysis, however, is his failure to take seriously the ecological limits to growth.[6] It is clear that he defends the free market and the idea of perpetual economic growth, since his proposal for a global wealth tax assumes that wealthy countries will continue to grow at a rate of 1.2 percent (with a global growth rate of up to 5 percent). Nowhere in the book does he admit that infinite growth is unsustainable on a planet with finite resources, a position which is now conventional wisdom for many scientists,[7] environmental activists,[8] and civil society organisations.[9] 

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/after-the-great-piketty-debate/2015/03/11

IGD er slik jeg ser det den beste kooperative modellen vi har for å møte en virkelighet av «degrowth»:

«Takk Øyvind, men fremdeles har ikke disse viktige kritikerne knekt koden med pengefølelsen, eller sett at det eneste Ellinor Ostrom mangler, er forståelse for inngruppestørrelsens betydning for politisk styring….» – Terje Bongard