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. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,435
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Marx was a much better sociologist than economist. He organized the way we think of many things. That said, Smith did treat Capitalism as a system. It was not the vernacular of the times, so he did not use that term, but the treatment is there.

    J
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,196
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Please, go ahead and cite specific stuff from Smith that supports this contention.
     
  3. Aleksey_aka_al

    Aleksey_aka_al Smiley

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,466
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Moscow, USSR
    These, here:

     
  4. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,789
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Thanks for the links. Lots of info to digest. Worthy of a longer reply, but I at least didn't want to give you no reply because of all the effort you went through.

    One thing to note is a lot of these stories employees don't have a controlling interest in the company, merely a financial interest in its performance (that is the majority of shares are retained by traditional owner/investors. I would say that's a clear distinction that needs to be made in terms of evidence toward employee governorship vs mere employee financial interest through noncontrolling ownership (which I have no doubts are effective)

    BTW do you happen to have a copy of the beyond-the-corporation-humanity-working, book? Is it worth pursuing as a purchase?

    Well one thing to note is that I'm unsure the above listed business arrangements ought be described not capitalists, but a different ownership structure within the broad capitalist category. These businesses are still subject to the same sort of market forces and considerations as a more traditional companies and are still focused on delivering profits to their owners.

    Now, I may seem to be engaging in petty semantics, but I don't do so without cause. When you talk about building up new layers of what's already there, you're advocating for a more refined version of what's already here. So in taking an up the "anticapitalist" label you're making the ideas seem more revolutionary than evolutionary, pitting you against the current system, instead of for an improved version. I view that as unwise identity politics. And since I do think that since these organizations remain owner profit driven, and we're not trying to eliminate profit driven organizations, I view it as not at all dishonest to describe as capitalist.
     
  5. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,196
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Yes, this is true, but I'm personally not fussy about this. I mean, long-term I'd like to see more employee governance but it takes time to build the 'ownership culture' that enables success with that and in the meantime I'd be for something like a major tax incentive for broad-based profit-sharing (an idea proposed by Blasi and Kruse, authors of research who are mentioned in some of those links).

    I had to get it for a class I took, I have it for Kindle and I forget how much it cost. It probably is worth buying if you're genuinely interested in the idea of employee ownership.

    Well, not necessarily- which is sort of the point. There's nothing preventing the workers from voting to dispose of the surplus derived from the business however they want, whereas the standard corporate model seems pretty locked into the "pay dividends to shareholders, buy your own stock to increase its value" which is just fueling inequality and not contributing to any kind of real economic growth.

    On the contrary, I think describing these politics as anticapitalist is highly useful and will only grow more useful as time goes on (millennials, after all, actually report disliking capitalism more than they dislike socialism). I don't see how being for improving the system is inconsistent with being against the current system, either.
    Anyway, not petty semantics as far as I'm concerned. This is a good (and fairly short) article which touches on some of the reasons I think describing my politics as anticapitalist is accurate.
     
  6. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,435
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    You are asking for a Cliff Notes version of Adam Smith's writings. You can get that at wiki.

    At Adam Smith's time, there was no organized study of economics. The Wealth of Nations is one of the most influential books ever published. Among other things was the seed crystal for the whole field of Economics. It's political importance in the day is much overlooked. It served as the principal counterweight to the Physiocratic (land development economics) school in France. The concept of enlightened self interest is now staple in philosophy.

    Marx, as the expression goes, stood on Smith's shoulders. No wonder he could see a bit further.

    J
     
  7. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,196
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    No, I doubted you are actually familiar enough with Smith's work to substantiate your claims and am unsurprised to see those doubts prove well-founded. Of course, familiarity wouldn't help you in this case because the claim you are making is incorrect.
     
  8. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,430
    That was my point. Economy and human empathy contradict and thwart the evolutionary process of "survival of the fittest".
     
  9. Honor

    Honor Immortal

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Celo
    There is a lot that goes into "survival of the fittest" than the survival of the fittest individual. I suggest reading up on competition-cooperation dynamics in biological systems.
     
  10. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,430
    Where did I say individual?
     
  11. Honor

    Honor Immortal

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Celo
    It was a deduction that followed your train of thought. Why would you think empathy contradicts evolution if you are indeed considering cooperation dynamics within evolutionary fitness?
     
  12. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,430
    In light of the latest thread, empathy may be bad for us, so all is well that tows the line.
     
  13. Honor

    Honor Immortal

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Celo
    Empathy is only bad for you when your environment favors an intraspecies-specific competitive adaptation. Even then it is a self-defeating process, since under absolute intraspecies competition, there will ultimately be only 1 individual left, which cannot reproduce if it is human - so fitness of the genome goes down to zero.
     
  14. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,066
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I disagree. Capitalism is just adds a monetary component to the "evolutionary process of survival of the fittest". Why is it any less relevant, from an evolutionary standpoint, that one person has "long money" than it is that they have long arms? People with long money will tend to have longer lives, better health, greater choices in reproduction, longer periods in their lives where they are reproductively viable... and so on... therefore placing them in better position to propagate their genes to the next generation. Its a perfectly relevant part of our current evolutionary scheme. It doesn't "thwart" evolution, its part of evolution, just like weather resistance, disease resistance, hair color, etc.
     
  15. bernie14

    bernie14 Filter Manipulator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    coastal flood plain
    are you referring to reproductive success? that is, that the accumulation of wealth, status, power etc would increase the reproductive success of certain individuals and therefore be advantageous (that is, the traits that would lead someone to WANT to attain wealth)? and if that is the case, would you think that the these traits ONLY developed over the past several thousand years or have been selected for in humans long before we were even human?
     
  16. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,196
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    This doesn't necessarily follow from what Sommer said, though I'm of the opinion that the more stuff->higher status->more mates thing long predates capitalism.
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  17. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    17,772
    Don't poor people have more kids? Do I have to work an eventual selective cull in here to make it work?
     
  18. bernie14

    bernie14 Filter Manipulator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    coastal flood plain
    I don’t think it has worked out that way statistically, just think Genghis Khan
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,196
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The affluence->less kids thing is definitely a much more recent (like, 20th or maybe late 19th century) development.
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  20. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    17,772
    I thought we were talking under "capitalism." I am usually happy to take Traitorfish's definitions on this.
     

Share This Page