Editing Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.3r/7200 institution

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">structural agreements versus institutions -

> a favorite question for anticommunists to ask is "am I entitled to your hard work?"
> but assuming this is the way the question has been phrased, the answer is always yes   [*n]

Libertarians: every so-called "voluntary agreement" is an /interaction/
individual houses of stuff didn't come from capitalists, all that stuff was produced and accumulated from interactions between individuals,
without which there is no sale and no work

this is the sense where we are entitled to others' output through a Market
things have value when we interact to produce useful applications of them such as in a sale, trade, or donation

this is a non-monetary, social connection theory of economics i guess

we make more than enough but we must connect it
so currently we must each use all our material resources carefully
but not the way a capitalist business does
rather, to slowly bridge the gap of .
[I don't remember what went here]

through applying our ability to work we can obsolete the need for individual stored-up hoards of possessions and territory solely intended for production
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">what comes immediately after capitalism?
social institutions.

a mature mdem politics would involve allowing the people to come together to constitute and reconstitute these institutions in a democratic way
but somehow without getting into fights between localities over States' Rights,
and without degenerating into Blobonomics
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">how is FNaF actually not so terrible? -

people really misunderstand what's great about death of the author
it's not that art can be "interpreted different ways"
it's that the art takes on a life completely separate of the creator as its own entity — the corporation or business territory — and the rest of the world interacts only with that new entity

this was obscured by the age before openly corporate art because the separate entity was simply a product such as a printed book
however, in the age of popular art as-such, dominated by higher-production-value media requiring significantly-sized teams, we now have a lot of evidence that there is not much difference between products and business territories. the function of a mass-produced book and the function of a popular art corporation or metaseries are all similar, creating a facility within society which exists separately from the author and the audience yet through that separation enables the facility to be shared across society. the labor of the author or creative team is rendered anonymous and handed to the separate facility as if it came from nowhere, and every task associated with the facility is considered a duty specific to the facility rather than the creators.

in separating its duties from the creators, the facility can take on a great democratizing power, [[Philosophical_Research:Signifiers/S97_creatorism|forcing the creators to serve the public]] before enjoying any privilege they may gain from being the owners. it becomes entirely non-negotiable how much a particular owner finds it painful or inconvenient to perform a particular task; the tough tasks simply must be done for the good of the facility itself, at however much pain or expense, or else the facility falls apart and nobody can make money in order to survive nor can anybody enjoy the facility.
unfortunately, capitalism provides easy mechanisms for owners to put nearly all these responsibilities onto workers and not have to shoulder any of them.

removing capitalists allows the basic civilizing premises of capitalism to be restored
once again, public facilities become a duty of citizens to other citizens.
the only problem with this is that building public facilities can bring a lot of stress. the workers are responsible for everything about the facility turning out perfect. if they make any errors or failures all the surrounding workers across society will be upset at them and might attempt to look for whatever processes are available to fire them. worse, if they make enough mistakes their entire facility might be closed and their paychecks handed to another facility — for instance, if people think a media series is going downhill they might feel it is time to stop paying anyone to make new works and simply print more of the first few entries in the series, logically meaning the printers get paid instead of the failing creators.
a workers' state which is functioning /correctly/ and /efficiently/ and where nothing is falling apart could thus begin to reveal contradictions between the promises of human rights made during a workers' movement and the daily responsibilities of being the proletariat. to be the proletariat is itself exhausting, and can easily lead people to treat each other in unkind ways, demanding facilities scale up and up without being ready to take care of the workers that have to provide those duties. many people could end up having to drop out of an industry they wanted to be in and choose another one simply because the demands of ordinary people onto a particular industry were too high.
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">there is actually a terrifying possibility that in a world covered in nothing but workers' states there could still be David processes, starting at tiny-scale chunk competition centered around individual Jobs or state businesses and ending in something that really resembles Third-World vendors and retail empire — the United States and Mexico are part of one large association of socialist structures, yet everybody who has failed at their job and caused a state business to close has been moved to a dead-end job in Mexico working in some plastics factory or something for minimum wage.
</div></div>

<div class="bop-foot" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 1.2em; margin-top: 1em;">
<!-- {{Template:BopFwd|Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/5.1r/1611 monkey-farm|v4.4-5.2 scraps/ Dragon Ball and Journey to the West versus Animal Farm}}
{{Template:BopFwd|Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.3r/1002 loss|v4.3/ we have everything to lose but our chains}} -->

{{Template:BopFooter|2023-07-01T01:20:32Z|institution|7200_institution|v4.2~4.3 scraps/ how commodities become institutions and potentially effect creatorism}}
</div><!--
-->[[Category:MDem v4.3 entries]]