Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

> In many existing demand cooperatives, such as rotating savings groups, there is often a trusted central coordinator — frequently an older community member — who helps maintain accountability and keep the interests of the group aligned.

Aligned with what? Whenever a central position is formed with power over something, even if it’s only a steering power, it will be sought out by power-hungry people and manipulated.

This thin proposal would be more interesting if it could give any discussion about the difficult points and how they’d address them rather than waving it all away under the guidance of a benevolent individual at the center.

To say I’m skeptical of an organization that wants to choose how to spend my money for me is an understatement.

View on HN

This sort of thing had a huge social movement in the UK in the 1800s, and parts of it still survive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group , for example. The trick is that it doesn't "feel like" a co-op, for most customers it's just a normal shop with an unusual ownership structure.

The financial co-operatives, the building societies, fell victim to "carpetbaggers" in the 90s who encouraged members to vote for proposals to convert to traditional for-profit structures and get bought out by other banks. This was at the time a really good deal! Co-op members got big one-off payments.

It was only in the 2000s that we found out what the negative effects of bank consolidation were.

Not all the mutuals were destroyed by carpetbaggers. There are dozens (though smaller than the big famous ones from the 1980s) today. Some instituted "anti-carpetbagger" rules to make themselves unappetising.

For example if the Society decides anybody who became a member fewer than ten years before the vote can't benefit from a demutualization effort then it forces would-be carpetbaggers to plot this implausibly long game where they all agree to join in, say, January 2017 and then vote to tear the society to pieces in February 2027 having now all met the ten year rule. But in reality in 2026 when you send those "Everybody ready?" notes around to remind them of what to do in 2027 you'll find a bunch of your fellow plotters got money trouble meanwhile and had to quit, or found Jesus and changed their minds or died, or whatever else and so this plan falls apart.

Edited:: Also, I remember voting (as a young adult) against this because it's obvious what happens next. We didn't find out later, the usual idiots claimed they didn't know what would happen because admitting that they knew and did it anyway makes it obvious just how stupid they are.

> The trick is that it doesn't "feel like" a co-op, for most customers it's just a normal shop with an unusual ownership structure.

People know what it is, and there are other similar cooperatives too. They have over 5 million members so a reasonable proportion of customers must be members. if you regularly use one its silly not to be a member.

> The financial co-operatives, the building societies, fell victim to "carpetbaggers" in the 90s who encouraged members to vote for proposals to convert to traditional for-profit structures and get bought out by other banks

Yes, that was damaging good institutions for a one off profit from people who joined just for that profit. A number did survive. Nationwide is the biggest, but there are a few others around.

One of the things that differentiates them from shareholder owned banks is that they are keeping branches open.

> how they’d address them rather than waving it all away under the guidance of a benevolent individual at the center.

Believe it or not, there’s no power structure that is immune to not having a benevolent individual at the center. That’s because most things are norms and practices developed culturally, not codified in power structures or laws.

For what it's worth, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer bands, i.e. the kind of structure humans actually evolved to live in, do seem to be relatively immune. They consist of a group of nuclear families who act together for mutual benefit. Everyone knows everyone else personally, and important decisions are made via consensus. Leaders exist, but they earn their position by demonstrating themselves the wisest, fairest, most capable, etc individual. and can lose it if they keep making bad decisions. And if one person attempts to become too dominant, the others will join together to kill or expel them, or leave to join another band.

Of course, it's not a perfect system, but it tends to avoid the excesses of control, violence and oppression that other power structures can enable. I try to avoid employers, clubs and other organisations whose internal dynamics don't resemble it (aside from the killing). As a result, I've mostly avoided the kind of stress and politics that other people seem to find themselves mired in.

Pre-agricultural Hunter-gatherer bands aren’t a monolith. Many were radically egalitarian, yes, many others were strictly hierarchical including slavery and human sacrifice. A surprisingly large proportion of them were hierarchical for one part of the year and egalitarian for the rest (often coinciding with religious festivals and/or different means of sustenance depending on the season).

Agreed.

The most valuable resource is trust. Follow closely by the trust-structures to deal with the ramifications of the primary trust-relationship being broken.

That is to say, the most fundamental rule is contract law.

I think you missed when I said that contract law is for when things have gone completely off the rails or for very expensive decisions. Most day to day operations are managed through societal norms and pressures. Contract law would be a poor fit. And by the way, honoring and enforcing contract law between third parties to yourself itself is a societal norm.

You’re wrong. Sorry about it.

In most jurisdictions anyone would want to live in, a handshake deal is as good as a contract.

Additionally, and again in any jurisdiction anyone would want to live in, when you purchase a durable good you’re entering into a contract with the seller and / or the manufacturer with regard to the advertised claims of the product and any warranted considerations.

Also, consumer items usually come with some guarantees, for example that your baby spinach didn’t kill you or result in harm to a gestating foetus, and so on and so forth.

You should look up The Tyranny of Structurelessness

> will be sought out by power-hungry people

Agreed.

> and manipulated.

That does not necessarily follow.

yes, I was going to write another paper on how we can have lil trusted person who evaluates proposals. My idea would be that each coop will create a charter and mission goals. These goals can be changed through quarter voting.

But after you create this charter the person who would evaluate it would be AI steward. He can tell you why your proposal aligns with the charter, why it doesnt. How it can come in line with the charter. After that given the money you need falls under a certain amount it just gets passed. If its over a certain amount though it goes through the vote.

but no proposal goes forth without AI steward being the fair evaluator of whether your proposal aligns with your coops charter.

> Whenever a central position is formed with power over something, even if it’s only a steering power, it will be sought out by power-hungry people and manipulated

The inevitable "iron law of oligarchy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com