is the answer to which deviding us in economic categories.
It follows a different logic and comes through culture with shifting minds.

- it's sharing instead of traiding
- it's caring instead of profit
- it's what can I do, instead of what can I get
- it's what do we need, instead of what do I want

'we can't solve problems with the same pattern we've created them'

- it's and instead of twitter

transform
make

· · SubwayTooter · 1 · 40 · 41

@paulfree14 unfortunately has been grabbed already by something else. Some strange implant of communism onto capitalistic society, potentially bringing wrongs of both systems together.

@saper well the word sharing got missinterpreted.
what's happening within und co is pure trading. you have A und you give it away if you recieve B. ...nothing else then ordinary trading.

@paulfree14 I am using a carsharing service from the national railway company and it reminds me of communism. Stuff gets dirty and nobody cares. People do not own stuff so they don't care. You have to ask bureaucrats (hotline) to fix stuff and they rarely do and never fast.

@saper @paulfree14 I could see how a carsharing service from DB may end up being run more like allocation of railway locos at a depot) even if it has a "cool/trendy" name) and where things can go wrong (not everyone has same discipline as railway workers must to be safe/efficient)

Uber (and other similar services) seem merely a way of trading and reducing external costs / avoiding regulations. (Uber is not popular in my town, taxi cos already have mobile apps!)

@saper don't let the narrative of 'carsharing' fool you. It's renting where ppl aren't encouraged to have shared responsibility but giving A for B and just give a shit about anything else.

@paulfree14 yeah, I understand. But that leads to communist results. So even no advantages of the so-called market economy.

@saper 'market-economy' or call it neoliberalism are the wet dreams of those having more shares in the markets then others.
this market is wasting 30% of food while every 3 secounds a child is dying cause of starvation.
many people have been killed through indirect effects. which makes very resilliant against raising awarness.

@paulfree14 Well. I think it is more complicated than that. I said "so-called market economy" because today economy does not meet market criteria really (not saying this is good or bad). This is a complex problem and there are currently no universal remedies. And of course awareness is only a first little step.

@saper call me naiv but I don't think it's very complicated. all it needs is , which always start where someone is currently located and scales up if more resources are available.
...no difference between friends or stranger.

...indeed creating a society based on solidarity is complicated.

@paulfree14 that's the point - known problem from the game theory, that there is no guarantee everybody plays nice.

@saper what game theory garantees is if people get rewared for selfish behavior, selfish behavior will be stronger anchord in our .

also it says that extrinsic motivation is killing intrinsic over time motivation.
there for people tend to ask 'what can I get, instead of what can I do'

@tellio ...oh sweet! :)
have somewhere stored some studys backing this claim. (at least I hope so)
will link to them somewhen later.

@paulfree14 @saper I can't see the communism in it, really (other than the precariousness, but that was never exclusive to it, see capitalist Latin America). Most of the Uber-like economy sounds way more like a good old pyramid scheme to me.

@saper @hisham_hm
well ueber has as much to do with sharing then renting cars.
ueber is trading service for money and catched the trend of .
...I just see a clever marketing strategy created this narrative of 'cool sharing ueber'

@hisham_hm @paulfree14 I mentioned two reasons: obvious early signals of lack of "ownership" among riders; reliance on somewhat working bureaucracy to fix stuff: many problems reported left unsolved for a while for example. I only don't see chronic lack of efficiency out of my favorite features of so-called real socialism

@saper @paulfree14 @hisham_hm Somewhat related: Took a cab to a friend's house (because Uber quoted me a high price) and it was hot, cab was slightly dirty, he didn't use A/C. He muttered complaints about other drivers and then proposed to leave us off a few hundred feet (across a few roads) from the door.
Took an uber back and it was like riding in a limo. Clean, A/C, friendly.
Neoliberalism is vicious but it works. Until we recognize that we are losing.

@paulfree14 Can you provide more info on #commons ? It's a pretty broad search term.. 😃

@sati if you have some time for reading I advice the called 'patterns of commening'.
To get an good understanding what means the first chapter is even already enough.

And there is of course also a free pdf
patternsofcommoning.org/

@woozle does custodianship in this case has simliar meaning then administrator or steward?
If so I prefer caretaker instead of owner.
Also for the reason that for a lot of commons no administration is needed.

As a example: in the community I'm srayn mostly with most of our clothes are in a common wardrope. If something breaks, you repair it or put it in a box for the clothes which needs tobe repaired.
...while there are enough caretaker this box is moslty empty.

@paulfree14

Yes to "steward"; I think "administrator" has slightly different connotations in that it usually implies a hierarchy.

It hadn't occurred to me that a common wardrobe would work -- people need different sizes and such -- but I can see how it would work in some cases, for most clothing... and certainly they need to be maintained... and childrens' clothing often has multiple owners before it becomes too worn out to repair (and then can be cannibalized).

@woozle I couldn't think of an example it's not working. Maybe for some special personalized clothing where the object mostly makes sence on a specific person.
people need different size: so you sort it

benefits:
- the group needs less clothes as if individuals would have their own of everything
- ppl havin more accsess to clothes
- no sorting of whom is what

@paulfree14

Different sizes, different tastes, different texture preferences.

Sorting will help, but eventually you get to the point where there are things that only one person actually wears.

I mean, this is an interesting concept, and I probably need to chew it over more in order to properly wrap my head around it; so much of how we live is capitalism-oriented -- buy more things, things belong to only one person, etc. -- that it's difficult to extract reality from the indoctrination.

Can I offer a less conflicting categorization that is a little more fair to those who are looking for at least some materialistic reward? (Nothing wrong with that)

Innovate
Organize
Democratize

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!