As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Problem With [Philanthropy]

11112141617

Posts

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it's almost inherently defeatist and nihilistic.

    - The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
    - The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
    - Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
    - Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.

    We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.

    This is unnecessarily hyperbolic. The super rich could do things like fight for higher taxes on the super rich, rather than pushing back against them at every opportunity. Instead of thinking that they know better than the government, they could support the government.

    There's a lot of room between "take everything you can from society" and "commit suicide so you're no longer a burden to society".

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Winky wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.

    I disagree with every single sentence of that post.

    We can and do talk about personal empowerment pretty commonly in our culture. "Power" can also mean freeing oneself from the control of others (or from nature). It doesn't mean limiting the self-determination of other individuals "almost by definition."

    I don't think there's "a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function." This is something I'd expect from a Chairman Yang quote about the Hive in Alpha Centauri or a propaganda machine from some other dystopian scifi. I do a whole lot of things that aren't necessary for society to effectively function because they materially benefit me or simply because I enjoy them; if you limit my power to just that which allows society to effectively function, you've basically decided that my well-being is not intrinsically important except as far as it satisfies some greater good. Yuck. No thanks, leave me out of that.

    Rather, I'd frame it in the exact opposite way: the power of every individual should be elevated to the highest possible level that allows society to effectively function.

    We can't arrange society such that power over others is always granted with full knowledge and consent; at least, not in any society currently possible. The essence of civilization is, fundamentally, about getting people to stop doing things that we don't want them to do (and do things that we want them to.) From the very first moment Hammurabi put chisel to stone, somebody was pissed off about it. This is the same reason why Libertarian "taxation is theft" arguments are dumb and wrong. Perhaps in some far-flung future we'll be able to construct post-scarcity bubbles for the people who don't consent to vaccinations or taxes or sharing a bathroom with a trans person. Or maybe we'll have Brave New World levels of brainwashing where everybody is happy with the order of things and there's no controversies. But without such scifi technology, we have to accept that sometimes our social institutions are going to put expectations on people that they're really not happy about, as distasteful as that seems.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Feral wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.

    I disagree with every single sentence of that post.

    We can and do talk about personal empowerment pretty commonly in our culture. "Power" can also mean freeing oneself from the control of others (or from nature). It doesn't mean limiting the self-determination of other individuals "almost by definition."

    I don't think there's "a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function." This is something I'd expect from a Chairman Yang quote about the Hive in Alpha Centauri or a propaganda machine from some other dystopian scifi. I do a whole lot of things that aren't necessary for society to effectively function because they materially benefit me or simply because I enjoy them; if you limit my power to just that which allows society to effectively function, you've basically decided that my well-being is not intrinsically important except as far as it satisfies some greater good. Yuck. No thanks, leave me out of that.

    Rather, I'd frame it in the exact opposite way: the power of every individual should be elevated to the highest possible level that allows society to effectively function.

    We can't arrange society such that power over others is always granted with full knowledge and consent; at least, not in any society currently possible. The essence of civilization is, fundamentally, about getting people to stop doing things that we don't want them to do (and do things that we want them to.) From the very first moment Hammurabi put chisel to stone, somebody was pissed off about it. This is the same reason why Libertarian "taxation is theft" arguments are dumb and wrong. Perhaps in some far-flung future we'll be able to construct post-scarcity bubbles for the people who don't consent to vaccinations or taxes or sharing a bathroom with a trans person. Or maybe we'll have Brave New World levels of brainwashing where everybody is happy with the order of things and there's no controversies. But without such scifi technology, we have to accept that sometimes our social institutions are going to put expectations on people that they're really not happy about, as distasteful as that seems.

    This statement and the statement as I intended it are not different. The power I refer to is the power over others. Fundamentally we agree.

    Edit: I don't even disagree that we are limited in our ability to ensure that everyone operates entirely under their own consent, just that we should push society as far as possible in that direction. I would submit that our disagreement is mostly regarding how far we think modern society could be pushed in that direction and still stand.

    Winky on
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    I think that might be somewhat an uncharitable read on the nature of power in Winky's post?

    like throughout this discussion we're not talking about, like, the power of the state to force you to pay your taxes or enforce vaccination standards for the public health. We're talking about what is essentially anti-democratic subversions of power, the classic dynamic of lords and kings over the common populace. In this context, Winky's not talking about making it so no one can do things, but so that we have removed the ability of a coalition of powerful individuals to exert harm to life and prosperity of others or be able to subvert democratic self-determination of a collective society

    And it'll take a multisystemic effort of reform to get there: socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist, healthy universal public welfare systems to allow people to not be endangered by lack of a job either during transitions, ill health or other reasons, improvements in education particularly in the realm of critical thinking habits, civics training and understanding of democratic systems, firmly established systems of human rights, and market regulation to mitigate and correct for externalities and collective action problems are just some of the reforms needed to secure a better, more equal future.

    But I think that comparing what we're aiming for in creating a more equal and fair society that supports one another, embraces democratic principles and such to folks who don't want to chip into the common good, to folks high on propaganda created to scare-market an alternative vaccination to what was commonly used (Fuck you, Dr. Wakefield), or TERFs just is... a bad take.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    I want to be clear, the power of the state to force you to pay your taxes and be vaccinated is something I regard as a necessary evil but an evil all the same, I would rather society was not this way but practical realities make it such that this is the way society has to be organized to give the largest degree of self-determination to people as we can possibly afford them overall. To not force people to vaccinate their children would be removing more choices from others than it is restoring to the parents.

    But really I'm pretty sure Feral and I are largely on the same page on this and mostly disagree on the practical realities of what's possible to afford people in terms of self-determination.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    A society that effectively slows or limits wealth concentration probably must also effectively enforce regulation that keeps companies from getting as big as we see now, which makes the calculation of control maybe a lot different

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Can't stocks be like... split up into different types? So Bezos gives himself a dozen "voting" stocks, and distributes the 10 other voting stocks as they should be.

    Then the rest of his stocks are just $$$ investments in the company, but no voting/decision-making, which can then be given up?

    I don't know if that's actually how this works.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    For what it's worth, I think wealth as an abstract concept is a poor avenue to achieve goals that are, I believe, more easily solved through direct methods. Which is to say if the concern is that wealthy people have too much influence on regulations/congress, then put regulations on campaign finances. If the concern is monolithic companies using unfair business practices, than start enforcing monopoly regulations again. If the concern is a poor societal safety net, then increase government welfare programs.

    None of these require a wealth tax to be effective, and the wealth tax is at best a vaguely indirect contributor.

    Even if the issue is not enough revenue to fund say government welfare programs, it seems significantly easier to tax direct things like corporate income or dividend payments than the tax "wealth," whatever that means.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Can't stocks be like... split up into different types? So Bezos gives himself a dozen "voting" stocks, and distributes the 10 other voting stocks as they should be.

    Then the rest of his stocks are just $$$ investments in the company, but no voting/decision-making, which can then be given up?

    I don't know if that's actually how this works.

    Probably it is totally possible, but it then comes back around to how do you define wealth. Even if Bezos had no cash or means of selling stocks but still controlled amazon, he would likely be able to create revenue streams for himself of obscene amounts of money. If he wanted to. I mean the 100 billion dollars, or whatever the forbes number is for him these days, is likely a purely figurative number. He could not sell everything he owns and end up with 100 billion in cash. So what is his wealth really?

    Why bother with the question at all, when most of the issues being discussed are about societal issues that are at best only tangentially related to the amount of money Bezos may or may not control.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    I don't believe employee ownership is a good solution or a good practice for most companies. Big picture company direction type decisions are difficult and require a unique skill set that most people don't have. It is not something that will be easily crowd sourced, and the most likely result is that companies are poorly managed (by the employees) and everything is less efficient/more expensive than it could be.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    The other side of this coin is governance that is overly conservative and risk averse, and cannot be flexible enough to evolve or adapt to the needs of the present. Elected bodies do not have a good reputation of doing what is necessary but unpopular.

    Which is the problem with extolling all the evils of capitalism while ignoring all the advantages. And thus also the costs of some of these proposals like capital flight, global competitiveness, etc.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The idea that stocks are investing in a company is nonsense that needs to die. That only applies at an IPO or similar. Almost all stock transactions have nothing to do with investment in companies.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King a island Registered User regular
    Ah yes the hard decisions of waging wars on unions and cutting work forces so you can have another year of soaring profits and the concentration of wealth such hard decisions to only be made by the coldest of individuals

    Their are flaws to the coop ownership but given the last decade of corporate and CEO pay rates all your really doing is sole shining

    icGJy2C.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think that might be somewhat an uncharitable read on the nature of power in Winky's post?

    like throughout this discussion we're not talking about, like, the power of the state to force you to pay your taxes or enforce vaccination standards for the public health. We're talking about what is essentially anti-democratic subversions of power, the classic dynamic of lords and kings over the common populace. In this context, Winky's not talking about making it so no one can do things, but so that we have removed the ability of a coalition of powerful individuals to exert harm to life and prosperity of others or be able to subvert democratic self-determination of a collective society

    And it'll take a multisystemic effort of reform to get there: socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist, healthy universal public welfare systems to allow people to not be endangered by lack of a job either during transitions, ill health or other reasons, improvements in education particularly in the realm of critical thinking habits, civics training and understanding of democratic systems, firmly established systems of human rights, and market regulation to mitigate and correct for externalities and collective action problems are just some of the reforms needed to secure a better, more equal future.

    But I think that comparing what we're aiming for in creating a more equal and fair society that supports one another, embraces democratic principles and such to folks who don't want to chip into the common good, to folks high on propaganda created to scare-market an alternative vaccination to what was commonly used (Fuck you, Dr. Wakefield), or TERFs just is... a bad take.

    Honest question: would you mind elaborating on "socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist?"

    Specifically:
    - What would that look like?
    - How would we promote that?
    And most importantly:
    - What would you do about businesses that don't shift from capitalist to socialist ownership?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited January 2020
    I think that there are some losses to inefficiency that are worth taking on for the sake of a more just system that allows workers to feel happier and exert more self-direction. I am okay if the next iPhone comes out in five years rather than in one. It's an acceptable loss for a more equitable world.

    Also worth noting that one of the problems of capitalist democracy and democratic decision making is that the masses are undereducated, but of course they are undereducated when the resources that would grant them access to education and the free time to pursue things like civics and additional education are reserved solely for the rich and pool to the top. We will have voters who make poor decisions until we grant them access to education that allows them to make good ones.

    Force the mechanics of wealth to rely on democratic decision-making, and you will see a direct economic incentive to educate the populace to make better decisions.

    Winky on
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think that might be somewhat an uncharitable read on the nature of power in Winky's post?

    like throughout this discussion we're not talking about, like, the power of the state to force you to pay your taxes or enforce vaccination standards for the public health. We're talking about what is essentially anti-democratic subversions of power, the classic dynamic of lords and kings over the common populace. In this context, Winky's not talking about making it so no one can do things, but so that we have removed the ability of a coalition of powerful individuals to exert harm to life and prosperity of others or be able to subvert democratic self-determination of a collective society

    And it'll take a multisystemic effort of reform to get there: socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist, healthy universal public welfare systems to allow people to not be endangered by lack of a job either during transitions, ill health or other reasons, improvements in education particularly in the realm of critical thinking habits, civics training and understanding of democratic systems, firmly established systems of human rights, and market regulation to mitigate and correct for externalities and collective action problems are just some of the reforms needed to secure a better, more equal future.

    But I think that comparing what we're aiming for in creating a more equal and fair society that supports one another, embraces democratic principles and such to folks who don't want to chip into the common good, to folks high on propaganda created to scare-market an alternative vaccination to what was commonly used (Fuck you, Dr. Wakefield), or TERFs just is... a bad take.

    Honest question: would you mind elaborating on "socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist?"

    Specifically:
    - What would that look like?
    - How would we promote that?
    And most importantly:
    - What would you do about businesses that don't shift from capitalist to socialist ownership?

    Got you fam: https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/solidarity-economy-building-economy-people-planet

    Actually I can provide a lot of similar resources if you're interested.

    As far as enforcement: we already regulate business structures, business financials, what businesses are allowed to operate where. This is a matter of regulation, and would be handled like regulation is. Corporations are legal structures.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    I don't believe employee ownership is a good solution or a good practice for most companies. Big picture company direction type decisions are difficult and require a unique skill set that most people don't have. It is not something that will be easily crowd sourced, and the most likely result is that companies are poorly managed (by the employees) and everything is less efficient/more expensive than it could be.

    This is exactly the kind of nonsense that CEOs spout to justify why they make five thousand times the average wage at their company. Being an employee of a large corporation, I see that roughly every two years we undergo a major change in direction that is almost always counter to the previous direction. Why? It's not because the old direction was bad, it's because the people on the executive fast track change positions every 18-24 months. For example, two years ago we moved all of our sales to regionalized models (north america, south america, europe, china, southeast asia, etc). Now we're moving to a global sales model.

    People setting the directions of large companies often don't have a clue what they're doing, and are so separated from the average employee that they have no understanding of the consequences of their actions. Look at Jeff Immelt's leadership of GE or the results of many other CEOs who often crash their companies with poor decision making and escape with golden parachutes.

    The success of a company is driven by the individuals in that company and is built on their labor.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Perhaps co-op companies are best for things like supermarkets where you don't need a "vision", everyone in the company knows how a supermarket works. Or mature companies. But new tech companies seem to genuinely benefit from an ego-monster with crazy ideas at the head.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Feral wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think that might be somewhat an uncharitable read on the nature of power in Winky's post?

    like throughout this discussion we're not talking about, like, the power of the state to force you to pay your taxes or enforce vaccination standards for the public health. We're talking about what is essentially anti-democratic subversions of power, the classic dynamic of lords and kings over the common populace. In this context, Winky's not talking about making it so no one can do things, but so that we have removed the ability of a coalition of powerful individuals to exert harm to life and prosperity of others or be able to subvert democratic self-determination of a collective society

    And it'll take a multisystemic effort of reform to get there: socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist, healthy universal public welfare systems to allow people to not be endangered by lack of a job either during transitions, ill health or other reasons, improvements in education particularly in the realm of critical thinking habits, civics training and understanding of democratic systems, firmly established systems of human rights, and market regulation to mitigate and correct for externalities and collective action problems are just some of the reforms needed to secure a better, more equal future.

    But I think that comparing what we're aiming for in creating a more equal and fair society that supports one another, embraces democratic principles and such to folks who don't want to chip into the common good, to folks high on propaganda created to scare-market an alternative vaccination to what was commonly used (Fuck you, Dr. Wakefield), or TERFs just is... a bad take.

    Honest question: would you mind elaborating on "socialist ownership structures that democratize business to be directly accountable to the workers of which those businesses consist?"

    Specifically:
    - What would that look like?
    - How would we promote that?
    And most importantly:
    - What would you do about businesses that don't shift from capitalist to socialist ownership?

    I think one method for what it would look like is that you would have federal business regulations that stipulate that a business must form a charter that allows for some kind of employee democracy regarding how the businesses is run. I don't want to prescribe any one specific form since I don't think there's necessarily going to be any kind of one size fits all "best democracy" implementation, so it's best to leave that to the employees forming the company to structure that themselves. A fully equal collective that has no hierarchical structure and features equal pay among all employees, like the Dead Cells development studio? Sure! A hierarchical organization wherein employees elect their bosses and a council to chart the course of the company, with term lengths and recall ability? Go for it. At the end of the day, the key is to allow for worker self-determination, and there are multiple forms and levels of democratic methods to achieve that end.

    To promote it, well, I'd say the first step is to get to talking about it with folks. Get the idea out there in the first place and then organize supporters together. From there, begin to lobby for it at a local level, a state level and take it further into the federal level.

    As for those who won't shift, in the long term, provided you have a state or federal legislation that requires employee ownership of their places of work, I would imagine the same thing happens to any other business that runs afoul of various regulations: fines, loss of licensing from the state corporate commission, etc. Loss of license to operate as a business would probably be better for larger companies that could potentially just weather fine after fine.

    For reference on the studio I cited: https://kotaku.com/game-studio-with-no-bosses-pays-everyone-the-same-1827872972

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    I don't believe employee ownership is a good solution or a good practice for most companies. Big picture company direction type decisions are difficult and require a unique skill set that most people don't have. It is not something that will be easily crowd sourced, and the most likely result is that companies are poorly managed (by the employees) and everything is less efficient/more expensive than it could be.

    This is exactly the kind of nonsense that CEOs spout to justify why they make five thousand times the average wage at their company. Being an employee of a large corporation, I see that roughly every two years we undergo a major change in direction that is almost always counter to the previous direction. Why? It's not because the old direction was bad, it's because the people on the executive fast track change positions every 18-24 months. For example, two years ago we moved all of our sales to regionalized models (north america, south america, europe, china, southeast asia, etc). Now we're moving to a global sales model.

    People setting the directions of large companies often don't have a clue what they're doing, and are so separated from the average employee that they have no understanding of the consequences of their actions. Look at Jeff Immelt's leadership of GE or the results of many other CEOs who often crash their companies with poor decision making and escape with golden parachutes.

    The success of a company is driven by the individuals in that company and is built on their labor.

    If a democracy can put a man on the moon in the 20th Century CE, I'm pretty sure a democratically run business can handle "big picture company direction decisions"

    Hell you don't even have to step away from a hierarchical command structure, you can just make said hierarchical structure founded in representative democracy that makes the people in charge accountable to the employees as a whole

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    Perhaps co-op companies are best for things like supermarkets where you don't need a "vision", everyone in the company knows how a supermarket works. Or mature companies. But new tech companies seem to genuinely benefit from an ego-monster with crazy ideas at the head.

    Companies in the start-up phase already are generally employee owned, and yet they are hotbeds of interesting ideas. And honestly in my own company I have seen the exact opposite, when we do exciting and interesting things it is because we have brainstormed company-wide and generated visions of our company's future strong enough to motivate enthusiasm company-wide, and when those ideas get shut down it is by leadership because they're too risky in terms of next quarter's EBITDA and they don't want to get removed by the private equity installed board.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    The other side of this coin is governance that is overly conservative and risk averse, and cannot be flexible enough to evolve or adapt to the needs of the present. Elected bodies do not have a good reputation of doing what is necessary but unpopular.

    Which is the problem with extolling all the evils of capitalism while ignoring all the advantages. And thus also the costs of some of these proposals like capital flight, global competitiveness, etc.
    I too enjoy Senator Palpatine's rise to power over the dreaded bureaucrats of the Republic. Supreme Chancellor and UNLIMITED POWER, huzzah!

    https://youtu.be/G3ZhdKW6gJo?t=247
    4:07 if it doesn't take you there

    Spoilered for a pop culture reference/joke

    But no seriously, you realize your argument is basically the sort of thing people use in trying to argue for the restoration of monarchy, right? And is, in general, glosses over a lot of varying contexts unique to each democracy in existence, including when they have acted to the exact opposite of what you have described, to create an unflattering and inaccurate image of democracy's drawbacks?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    I don't empathize with or judge any of this. I'm a tool. Give me a task and I'll do it. If I have an idea, it'll be to directly get something done in the real world. I won't grind my teeth if it turns out not to work. I'll simply think of something else.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    I don't empathize with or judge any of this. I'm a tool. Give me a task and I'll do it. If I have an idea, it'll be to directly get something done in the real world. I won't grind my teeth if it turns out not to work. I'll simply think of something else.

    I am not sure how to respond to this other than it is a... sobering moment to watch another person describe themselves as a tool in this starkly practical and materialist manner, if I'm understanding right.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    We should take a stand for the system we think is just, it will live or die on our support.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    I don't empathize with or judge any of this. I'm a tool. Give me a task and I'll do it. If I have an idea, it'll be to directly get something done in the real world. I won't grind my teeth if it turns out not to work. I'll simply think of something else.

    I am not sure how to respond to this other than it is a... sobering moment to watch another person describe themselves as a tool in this starkly practical and materialist manner, if I'm understanding right.

    Start thinking about how to respond and confront, because there are quite a lot of people like me out there armed to help someone with vision or ignore someone with delusion.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    I don't empathize with or judge any of this. I'm a tool. Give me a task and I'll do it. If I have an idea, it'll be to directly get something done in the real world. I won't grind my teeth if it turns out not to work. I'll simply think of something else.

    I am not sure how to respond to this other than it is a... sobering moment to watch another person describe themselves as a tool in this starkly practical and materialist manner, if I'm understanding right.

    Start thinking about how to respond and confront, because there are quite a lot of people like me out there armed to help someone with vision or ignore someone with delusion.

    The problem is I don't want people to be tools?

    like ideologically speaking, my end-goal is a balance between self-empowerment and mutual camaraderie to solve problems and meet needs that individual efforts alone can't accomplish.

    "I'm a tool" is very much just... like, the antithesis to my viewpoint that every human is a unique individual with drives and goals, even if they're small scale things that don't necessarily make massive impacts.


    It's like someone just walked up and said "I enjoy being a cog in the machine," if I've understood you right, and I do not know at the moment how to come to terms with that self-identity

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    I think this is a dangerous notion that presumes that it is inevitable that the arc of history bend towards justice.

    The arc of history more often is an interplay of powers against each other, and as much as we'd like to think, "justice" has little say in the matter, unless you can get people to empathize with your plight.


    You're dealing with folks with a lot of power and the ability to craft massive PR campaigns, including utilizing philanthropy as a laundering mechanism. That's not something we can just make value judgements based on how they Darwin themselves out.

    I don't empathize with or judge any of this. I'm a tool. Give me a task and I'll do it. If I have an idea, it'll be to directly get something done in the real world. I won't grind my teeth if it turns out not to work. I'll simply think of something else.

    I am not sure how to respond to this other than it is a... sobering moment to watch another person describe themselves as a tool in this starkly practical and materialist manner, if I'm understanding right.

    Start thinking about how to respond and confront, because there are quite a lot of people like me out there armed to help someone with vision or ignore someone with delusion.

    The problem is I don't want people to be tools?

    like ideologically speaking, my end-goal is a balance between self-empowerment and mutual camaraderie to solve problems and meet needs that individual efforts alone can't accomplish.

    "I'm a tool" is very much just... like, the antithesis to my viewpoint that every human is a unique individual with drives and goals, even if they're small scale things that don't necessarily make massive impacts.


    It's like someone just walked up and said "I enjoy being a cog in the machine," if I've understood you right, and I do not know at the moment how to come to terms with that self-identity

    I don't enjoy being a cog in a machine. Enjoyment is not a prerequisite for me to function. I have my own goals, and if I need your help achieving them, I will specifically ask for it. Until then, if a person needs something done I'm capable of doing, I do it.

    Philanthropy. What should I do about it? Essentially vote the way I was going to anyway. No more deliverables? Great, we're done. Next.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Winky wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.

    To be clear, this is the sort of posting I had in mind when I got needlessly hyperbolic.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    This is the exact same mindset of "we'll let the market decide, surely the better option will prevail."

    No, that's not how reality works, because the forces that are already in positions of power and influence will utilize all of that power and influence to crush any possible threats to their power and influence before they can become powerful and influential enough to challenge them on an even playing field.

  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that if socialism and co-ops and whatnot are going to win, then they're going to win. Let em face capitalism. Let's have a go of it.

    Don't underestimate the lengths to which Capitalists have and will go in that fight.



    There is a reason the Pinkertons have the rep they do.


    Also funfact: They still exist. They actually have a service now where you can rent a pinkerton to pose as one of your employees and spy on your other, actual employees.

    If socialism is a resilient philosophy, it should prevail.

    This is the exact same mindset of "we'll let the market decide, surely the better option will prevail."

    No, that's not how reality works, because the forces that are already in positions of power and influence will utilize all of that power and influence to crush any possible threats to their power and influence before they can become powerful and influential enough to challenge them on an even playing field.

    It's also like saying that might makes right so long as it happens on a market. We should make our own decisions for how we want to live. Efficiency or market competitiveness aren't fundamental goods, so why should we value them more than something that is still viable, less competitive, but more in line with how we actually want to live? Again, that's the entire reason that regulations exist.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, probably need to work on killing all the bullshit narratives that the rich have build up to help them defend their bullshit setups. Hard to advocate for higher taxes on the rich, when they can easily convince a ton of rubes that the money is better off with them because they are smarter than anyone. That they totally earned it through their own efforts. Also those bullshit narratives have allowed convince a ton of people to put their interests aside for the interests of the wealthy. After all they've convinced so many that barely taxing them, means more money goes towards helping people, when it's far less than what they'd have to pay if taxes were sane. Pretty much rip down their lies, so they can't easily con people into letting them continue to rig the system.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    I don't believe employee ownership is a good solution or a good practice for most companies. Big picture company direction type decisions are difficult and require a unique skill set that most people don't have. It is not something that will be easily crowd sourced, and the most likely result is that companies are poorly managed (by the employees) and everything is less efficient/more expensive than it could be.

    This is exactly the kind of nonsense that CEOs spout to justify why they make five thousand times the average wage at their company. Being an employee of a large corporation, I see that roughly every two years we undergo a major change in direction that is almost always counter to the previous direction. Why? It's not because the old direction was bad, it's because the people on the executive fast track change positions every 18-24 months. For example, two years ago we moved all of our sales to regionalized models (north america, south america, europe, china, southeast asia, etc). Now we're moving to a global sales model.

    People setting the directions of large companies often don't have a clue what they're doing, and are so separated from the average employee that they have no understanding of the consequences of their actions. Look at Jeff Immelt's leadership of GE or the results of many other CEOs who often crash their companies with poor decision making and escape with golden parachutes.

    The success of a company is driven by the individuals in that company and is built on their labor.

    If a democracy can put a man on the moon in the 20th Century CE, I'm pretty sure a democratically run business can handle "big picture company direction decisions"

    Hell you don't even have to step away from a hierarchical command structure, you can just make said hierarchical structure founded in representative democracy that makes the people in charge accountable to the employees as a whole

    Eh. Democracy frequently demonstrates that it's incapable of a lot of good decisions and we are currently seeing a ton of this kind of result in our western democratic systems. Frequently power is turned over to groups that are not democratic exactly because of these issues.

    The criticism of the whole "CEO's will know what's best" thing is true. But it's also true the other way. Businesses in general don't really know wtf they are doing most times and just kinda go through the motions of things they've seen elsewhere, cargo-cult-style. And that's true regardless of the structure.

    I would say the goal is more to invest whoever is actually in charge in the welfare of the company as a whole. Or to divorce people's welfare from the welfare of the place they work. You've got to do one or the other. Or both.

  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.

    That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.

    Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.

    This does bring up the question about wealth versus ownership though. Bezos and Gates for example could not give up their wealth without giving up control of the companies they founded. Similarly, any wealth tax of significant size means that they would also be forced to eventually cede control. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Certainly CEOs like zuckerberg and dorsey make it seem like it would be a great thing, but I'm not convinced it is always in societies best interest to force large companies into some kind of board based control, and it certainly seems like a heavy cost for the individual for nebulous societal gain (the loss being the control of the company not the wealth lost through the wealth tax).

    Again, this is a place where I see employee ownership as the solution. The ones doing the work should be the ones to vote on the direction the company takes, either through direct democracy or, when more practical, electing their own board members. It does not bear out in practice that ownership is better exercised by a single or few powerful individuals, they will be driven to actions that increase profit or growth at the expense of long term stability.

    I don't believe employee ownership is a good solution or a good practice for most companies. Big picture company direction type decisions are difficult and require a unique skill set that most people don't have. It is not something that will be easily crowd sourced, and the most likely result is that companies are poorly managed (by the employees) and everything is less efficient/more expensive than it could be.

    This is exactly the kind of nonsense that CEOs spout to justify why they make five thousand times the average wage at their company. Being an employee of a large corporation, I see that roughly every two years we undergo a major change in direction that is almost always counter to the previous direction. Why? It's not because the old direction was bad, it's because the people on the executive fast track change positions every 18-24 months. For example, two years ago we moved all of our sales to regionalized models (north america, south america, europe, china, southeast asia, etc). Now we're moving to a global sales model.

    People setting the directions of large companies often don't have a clue what they're doing, and are so separated from the average employee that they have no understanding of the consequences of their actions. Look at Jeff Immelt's leadership of GE or the results of many other CEOs who often crash their companies with poor decision making and escape with golden parachutes.

    The success of a company is driven by the individuals in that company and is built on their labor.

    If a democracy can put a man on the moon in the 20th Century CE, I'm pretty sure a democratically run business can handle "big picture company direction decisions"

    Hell you don't even have to step away from a hierarchical command structure, you can just make said hierarchical structure founded in representative democracy that makes the people in charge accountable to the employees as a whole

    Eh. Democracy frequently demonstrates that it's incapable of a lot of good decisions and we are currently seeing a ton of this kind of result in our western democratic systems. Frequently power is turned over to groups that are not democratic exactly because of these issues.

    The criticism of the whole "CEO's will know what's best" thing is true. But it's also true the other way. Businesses in general don't really know wtf they are doing most times and just kinda go through the motions of things they've seen elsewhere, cargo-cult-style. And that's true regardless of the structure.

    I would say the goal is more to invest whoever is actually in charge in the welfare of the company as a whole. Or to divorce people's welfare from the welfare of the place they work. You've got to do one or the other. Or both.

    I would actively argue that a lot of the poor decisions democracies make currently are directly related to wealth inequality and money being used to manipulate voters and legislators towards the ends of powerful individuals.

    That's not to say that a democracy is incapable of making bad decisions on its own, but so many of the bad decisions democracies have been making lately can have a clear line drawn to the campaign donations and messaging platforms of the wealthy pushing political decisions that allow specific individuals to make out like bandits.

Sign In or Register to comment.