Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[onejayhawk]

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.

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

 

[Lexicus]

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.

Please, go ahead and cite specific stuff from Smith that supports this contention.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Which step do you think doesn't logically follow for each thing?

These, here:

Thing 3: On Action
(0/Given: Preventing systems of oppression is more important than preserving order or peace in situations in which that oppression breeds more violence or damage than would be required to prevent it)
1. A setting in which there are people with more power than others is a hierarchy.
2. Hierarchies are oppressive by definition.
3. Hierarchies are resistant to their own destruction as is natural to anything.
4. Therefore, change through the network of the oppressive hierarchy is impossible.
5. Given the above, however, change is still preferred under the assumption that it will not be more destructive than the hierarchy itself, and therefore, assuming it is not, action against the system of oppression is preferable to inaction or continued attempts at changing the hierarchy from within.

 

[Perfection]

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

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, 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.

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.

 

[Lexicus]

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)

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).

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[onejayhawk]

Please, go ahead and cite specific stuff from Smith that supports this contention.

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

 

[Lexicus]

You are asking for a Cliff Notes version of Adam Smith's writings. You can get that at wiki.

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.

 

[timtofly]

The whole concept of monetary compensation seems to directly contradict this statement.

That was my point. Economy and human empathy contradict and thwart the evolutionary process of "survival of the fittest".

 

[Honor]

That was my point. Economy and human empathy contradict and thwart the evolutionary process of "survival of the fittest".

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.

 

[timtofly]

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.

Where did I say individual?

 

[Honor]

Where did I say individual?

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?

 

[timtofly]

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?

In light of the latest thread, empathy may be bad for us, so all is well that tows the line.

 

[Honor]

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That was my point. Economy and human empathy contradict and thwart the evolutionary process of "survival of the fittest".

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.

 

[bernie14]

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.

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?

 

[Lexicus]

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?

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't poor people have more kids? Do I have to work an eventual selective cull in here to make it work?

 

[bernie14]

Don't poor people have more kids? Do I have to work an eventual selective cull in here to make it work?

I don’t think it has worked out that way statistically, just think Genghis Khan

 

[Lexicus]

The affluence->less kids thing is definitely a much more recent (like, 20th or maybe late 19th century) development.

 

[Farm Boy]

I thought we were talking under "capitalism." I am usually happy to take Traitorfish's definitions on this.