1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by inthesomeday, Apr 30, 2017.

  1. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,998
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I dunno... that starving bear thing sounds kinda fun... very sporty...
     
  2. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    17,727
    Anyone got a shovel, a log, some grease, and a lot of alcohol?

    Well, and I suppose a bear. Details.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
  3. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,998
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    You forgot "a hill". Well either that or a smooth flat surface like a frozen lake or a parking lot.
     
  4. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,181
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The question is not whether employee-owned businesses are able to make these decisions, the question is whether they are better able to do so than conventionally-run firms, all other things equal. I think we would agree that criticizing electoral democracy on the basis of, say, Trump winning the recent election wouldn't make the point that electoral democracy is bad, because you have to show that it's worse than the other options, not just that it occasionally spits out bad outcomes.
    https://www.nceo.org/articles/research-employee-ownership-corporate-performance

    https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-working
    (this one is quite dated but I don't see any reason to dismiss its relevance because of that).

    http://daviderdal.net/beyond-the-corporation-humanity-working/
    ^This book contains a number of case studies that I think completely disprove your argument about making tough choices, including one employee-owned ceramics company where the employees voted to move operations to China.

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...31/why-we-need-more-employee-owned-businesses

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/darren...panies-like-new-belgium-brewing/#62d6be7872d1

    Well, I see it as building up new layers on top of what's already there - despite our best tries that's all we can really do. There is no abruptly breaking with the past, just as there is no returning to it.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
    Perfection and Terxpahseyton like this.
  5. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    There may still be the nuclear reset button option.
     
  6. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,352
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    Extracurricular implies manual labour that is not done to survive, unlike for most of human history. It falls under work that is done in people's free time, so we're still within the realm of free time vs. no free time, for which you opined initially that it's better for primates to have less free time.
     
  7. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    17,727
    Yup. I had to add extracurricular in there to distinguish it from "do it or die." That particular word was tough to get right, and I'm not sure its adequate. Still haven't come up with a better one, though. I agree that the primate thing isn't totally neat and tidy. I am not going to agree with a flat and literal use of the word "better" here, like I will with Diabetes/malnutrition(contingent upon medical care if you want another rabbit hole). In fact, it is likely better that baboons are stressing each other to death instead of being eaten by predators more frequently, ie, starving bears. I guess we should say the situation is different instead, and with its own set of resultant problems. Which is why in #101 I would have been forced to admit that using them as a comparison will "suffer from the problem that they're at best merely illustrative of humanity rather than as examples thereof."
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  8. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    Humans are the only animals who seemingly understand "survival of the fittest", but refuse to act on it, by removing the weak, and letting the fit survive. If evolution produced empathy, it seemingly committed suicide, with that one outcome.
     
  9. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,430
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    True. Almost all animals have some sort of dominance testing, often in the form of martial challenge. Even herd animals, which protect the young of others, will have trials for mating rights.

    On the general subject of Capitalism, Adam Smith did not advocate it or consider it a good system. It was more the least of evils.

    BTW Did you ever find a right winger to post opinions on the OP?

    J
     
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,998
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    The whole concept of monetary compensation seems to directly contradict this statement.
     
  11. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,430
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    He has a point. Fairness and equality are not found in nature. That man uses them is a good thing, but it is possible to overdo a good thing.

    J
     
  12. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,796
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Uhhhh, no. If empathy causes fitness, then empathy will be selected for. Fitness is whatever works.
     
    Sommerswerd likes this.
  13. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,083
    Location:
    Scotland
    Smith didn't consider capitalism a "system" at all. He described what he understood as the natural laws of commerce. The idea that capitalism is a "system", one way or organising society among several, originates with its critics, above all with Marx.
     
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,181
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    What do you mean exactly by 'above all' here?
     
  15. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,083
    Location:
    Scotland
    Marx was the first to flesh out a theory of capitalism as an historically-distinct form of social organisation. Previous theorists, while appreciating that they were witnessing something new, continued to think of capitalism as a new way of arranging ancient and basically timeless elements. Anyone who frames capitalism as a coherent "system" and not just a convenient way of saying "markets, but these ones go to eleven" is in some measure of debt to Big Karl.
     
  16. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,181
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    But a historically-distinct form of social organization is precisely a "new way of arranging ancient and basically a-historical elements." Capitalism's constituent elements are very ancient: we have had money, markets, profit, and so on for millennia. As I learned it most of the critics of capitalism who predated Marx focused on capitalism as a political system, ie, the disproportionately great power of capitalists within a market economy, whereas Marx was one (but not the first one!) who said "nope, we've gotta tear this whole thing down and here's why".
     
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,998
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    A quick Google search seems to demonstrate this claim to be false... so I wonder whether you are basing your agreement on gut-instinct, partisan leanings/biases, or some concrete knowledge/study of the underlying science?
     
    demiurgenext likes this.
  18. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,083
    Location:
    Scotland
    Marx's argument was that they're really not: that they appear ancient, but the human relationships they embody are essentially modern. That's what distinguished capitalism from mere mercantilism, what made it a coherent and distinct economic system, a distinct type of society, rather than just a society in which certain commercial practices figured more prominently than in others.

    Marx was far from the first to argue that capitalism had to be torn up root and branch; even Marx was arguing that before he'd sat down and worked out the theory. Marx's innovation was arguing that overthrowing capitalism was not merely morally but historically necessary, that capitalism wasn't just unjust, but that it was a dead-end.
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,181
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I think maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways. Money is ancient. Private property is ancient. Wage labor is ancient. Investment, profit, and business enterprise are ancient. It's quite obviously not these elements themselves, but the way they are arranged, that is "new" and unique to capitalism.

    Capitalism is a type of society in which certain commercial practices figure more prominently than others. It's also many other things, of course.

    I'm not sure what "historically necessary" really means, but I would change that to "historically inevitable." In many ways, he argued it was he opposite of a dead-end: it would, by its own internal laws of motion, transform into something else.
     
  20. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,543
    Location:
    US of A

    Commerce and trade are ancient. What Marx recognized but Smith did not is actually something which didn't commonly exist during or before Smith's lifetime. And that is the ownership of the means of production through capital accumulation, and the reinvesting of capital for the purpose of generating more, in an essentially endlessly perpetuating fashion.

    Previous to the 19th century, a family may own a business, and may even pass that business down the generations. And a partnership business may exist. But a business that was owned in part by many was a rarity, and had limited lifespans. A company may be formed for a business venture, but it was then dissolved when the venture was complete. Some may have existed longer, but was very much the exception rather than the rule. The ongoing capitalist business venture really only arose with industrialization and railroads.
     

Share This Page