If you care about the author, navigate to their website and buy a book directly from them, or a tshirt or something. Then they'll actually get paid, unlike from a library loan, or the scraps that Amazon gives them (unless the author depends on Amazon's print on demand for all prints of their books in which case, I guess buy it from Amazon).
In order for the writer not to starve, we must bypass the zillionaires.
Send pennies directly to the artist and work for a just society.
I'd prefer a complete bypass of the enshittified economy. Replaced with a system that doesn't trust that people with absolute power won't turn into narcissist cunts.
We've seen this waterfall of a system in communism, capitalism and more recently technofeodalism so one would think the logical solution would be to replace it with a grassroots up system.
> I'd prefer a complete bypass of the enshittified economy. Replaced with a system that doesn't trust that people with absolute power won't turn into narcissist cunts.
I've been running a co-op for about 4 years now and I really want to expand the model since it seems to be working really well. Turns out giving everyone in the company ownership and an equal say in what we do with our profits (including simply redistributing it to everyone) results in ridiculously hard working people. I'm trying to leverage this into making our own internal product development happen but am kinda stuck coming up with ideas.
Anyway someone interviewed me recently and was asking, "why don't more companies form as co-ops? What's the hidden downsides?" I was surprised that there was this suspicion that there must be some sneaky hidden downside, when in fact co-ops are more sustainable, have lower turnover, higher profit per person, and happier employees. There's no actual downside, it's literally all upsides - oh, except for the fact that there's no way to get obscenely rich as the owner of a co-op. That's it, that's the entire reason. People with capital start companies so they can exploit labor to get even more capital, and only people with capital have enough time and money to start companies, so thus there's not many co-ops.
> replace it with a grassroots up system.
This is basically how Marx wrote about Communism, and how Kropotkin wrote about Anarchist Communism. There have been many... interpretations... of their work in practice. Spanish anarchist syndicalism actually worked remarkably well, they had nearly their entire economy syndicalized before they were betrayed by the communists and then killed en masse by the fascists.
Okay, this sounds awesome. Co-op is sounding good to me.
I'm not too familiar with the communist theory, but I have come to the conclusion that the system doesn't matter nearly as much as the direction.
Waterfall communism or capitalism will corrupt the ones on top. And the grassroots up one will keep absolute power and the human narcissist tendencies at check.
> Waiting in line in a library app is annoying, but the waiting signals demand, which drives the library to buy more copies to circulate.
This is not true for digital libraries. They do not "buy more copies" to circulate. They don't physically send you an USB Stick with a copy of the book and you send that back without making a copy. They can send everyone "in line" as many copies as they want. Whats the size of an ebook these days? 1MB? How many trillion copies could you make in a day?
You have to wait in line to hopefully someday maybe be allowed to read a copy of a book while meta torrents a petabyte of books for their AI usage. This is nothing but a humiliation ritual.
Waiting in line in a library app is annoying, but the waiting signals demand, which drives the library to buy more copies to circulate.