Platform cooperativism [...]

A more socially beneficially way of providing that which is currently provided by the ‘sharing economy’. So less capitalist ways of doing Uber, Airbnb, et at.

(Source)


Platform capitalism

Alienation [...]

There’s four different types of alienation: from the world; from the activity of production; from species-being; and estrangement of man-to-man.

Under the economic system of private ownership, society divides itself into two classes: the property owners and the property-less workers. In this arrangement, the workers not only suffer impoverishment but also experience an estrangement or alienation from the world. This estrangement occurs because the worker relates to the product of his work as an object alien and even hostile to himself. The worker puts his life into the object and his labor is invested in the object, yet because the worker does not own the fruits of his labor, which in capitalism are appropriated from him, he becomes more estranged the more he produces. Everything he makes contributes to a world outside of him to which he does not belong. He shrinks in comparison to this world of objects that he helps create but does not possess. This first type of alienation is the estrangement of the worker from the product of his work.

The second type of alienation is the estrangement of the worker from the activity of production. The work that the worker performs does not belong to the worker but is a means of survival that the worker is forced to perform for someone else. As such, his working activity does not spring spontaneously from within as a natural act of creativity but rather exists outside of him and signifies a loss of his self.

The third form of alienation is the worker’s alienation from “species-being,” or human identity. For human beings, work amounts to a life purpose. The process of acting on and transforming inorganic matter to create things constitutes the core identity of the human being. A person is what he or she does in transforming nature into objects through practical activity. But in the modern system of private ownership and the division of labor, the worker is estranged from this essential source of identity and life purpose for the human species.

The fourth and final form of alienation is the “estrangement of man to man.” Since the worker’s product is owned by someone else, the worker regards this person, the capitalist, as alien and hostile. The worker feels alienated from and antagonistic toward the entire system of private property through which the capitalist appropriates both the objects of production for his own enrichment at the expense of the worker and the worker’s sense of identity and wholeness as a human being. (Source)

Liquid Democracy [...]

> Liquid Democracy combines the advantages of Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy and creates a truly democratic voting system that empowers voters to either vote on issues directly, or to delegate ones voting power to a trusted party. (Source)

Four Futures – Socialism [...]

One of the Four Futures, socialism has automation but not abundance.  As such we need to organise ways to share the resources we have.  It sounds fairly similar to what Naomi Klein discusses in This Changes Everything.  And probably the most likely of the Four Futures (that we want to happen.)

“Automation exists, but the breakthrough that creates a cornucopia of carbonless energy doesn’t. This means we have to cool the climate the old-fashioned way, through a massive, state-led campaign to radically remake our infrastructure, our landscape and our patterns of consumption. Frase offers some thoughtful proposals on how to organise such an undertaking fairly and efficiently, through mechanisms such as a universal basic income, paired with market planning.”
(Source)

Broken Windows Theory Broken [...]

The broken windows theory is a sociological explanation of how “good” areas go “bad” and how bad areas go good. In the theory, tolerance of small offenses (such vandalism) leads to increases in larger offenses (such as murder). Application of policies informed by the theory were credited for New York City’s decline in crime in the 1990’s. However, there are many reasons to doubt this explanation.

Homicide dropped nationally in the 1990s, not just in New York City. (source)
Homicide dropped nationally in the 1990s, not just in New York City. (source)

The biggest reason to doubt that New York’s crackdown on smaller offenses led to reduced crime over the 1990s is that crime in America fell everywhere, whether “Broken Windows” policies were enforced or not.

While New York may have had a greater reduction in crime than other cities, the minimal differences can be explained as regression to the mean — essentially the areas that had the highest escalation of crime in the 1970s and 1980s experienced the greatest declines as crime reverted to its historical trend. Harcourt and Ludwig show that this mean regression can account for almost all of the New York City decline. [http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=public_law_and_legal_theory html]

A second area of concern is that it is unclear if what is really be observed in the “broken windows” correlation is influence of a third factor: economics. It’s possible that saying communities that have more broken windows have more murder is simply equivalent to saying “poor areas have higher homicide rates”.

Over the past two decades, criminologists have largely come to see the broken windows effect as minor at best and harmful at worst. Summarizing the research in 2004, David Thacher concluded:

Over the past few years, however, social science has not been kind to the broken windows theory. A number of scholars reanalyzed the initial studies that appeared to support it, arguing in particular that Wesley Skogan’s seminal study of the relationship between disorder and crime did not demonstrate the strong relationship that broken window proponents have claimed. Others pressed forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between disorder and crime. The mostprominent among them concluded that the relationship between disorder and serious crime is modest, and even that relationship is largely an artifact of more fundamental social forces. [http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dthacher/files/OrderMaintenance.pdf pdf]


Another line of thought is making small offenses capital crimes backfires. See Penalty Compression.

Broken Windows Theory brought in Compstat which created Perverse Incentives

Broken Windows Theory Broken [...]

The broken windows theory is a sociological explanation of how “good” areas go “bad” and how bad areas go good. In the theory, tolerance of small offenses (such vandalism) leads to increases in larger offenses (such as murder). Application of policies informed by the theory were credited for New York City’s decline in crime in the 1990’s. However, there are many reasons to doubt this explanation.

Homicide dropped nationally in the 1990s, not just in New York City. (source)
Homicide dropped nationally in the 1990s, not just in New York City. (source)

The biggest reason to doubt that New York’s crackdown on smaller offenses led to reduced crime over the 1990s is that crime in America fell everywhere, whether “Broken Windows” policies were enforced or not.

While New York may have had a greater reduction in crime than other cities, the minimal differences can be explained as regression to the mean — essentially the areas that had the highest escalation of crime in the 1970s and 1980s experienced the greatest declines as crime reverted to its historical trend. Harcourt and Ludwig show that this mean regression can account for almost all of the New York City decline. [http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=public_law_and_legal_theory html]

A second area of concern is that it is unclear if what is really be observed in the “broken windows” correlation is influence of a third factor: economics. It’s possible that saying communities that have more broken windows have more murder is simply equivalent to saying “poor areas have higher homicide rates”.

Over the past two decades, criminologists have largely come to see the broken windows effect as minor at best and harmful at worst. Summarizing the research in 2004, David Thacher concluded:

Over the past few years, however, social science has not been kind to the broken windows theory. A number of scholars reanalyzed the initial studies that appeared to support it, arguing in particular that Wesley Skogan’s seminal study of the relationship between disorder and crime did not demonstrate the strong relationship that broken window proponents have claimed. Others pressed forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between disorder and crime. The mostprominent among them concluded that the relationship between disorder and serious crime is modest, and even that relationship is largely an artifact of more fundamental social forces. [http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dthacher/files/OrderMaintenance.pdf pdf]


Another line of thought is making small offenses capital crimes backfires. See Penalty Compression.

Broken Windows Theory brought in Compstat which created Perverse Incentives

Sometimes allowing small violations can lead to escalation. See Malheur’s Broken Window