"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Harry Bosch]

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

Let's see... submit, or die?
So hard to choose one's options...

People are free to start their own business, join a co-op, join an ESOP (there are thousands of ESOPs, join a company that isn't so dictatorial, and etc.

 

[untermensche]

Let's see... submit, or die?
So hard to choose one's options...

People are free to start their own business, join a co-op, join an ESOP (there are thousands of ESOPs, join a company that isn't so dictatorial, and etc.

"Let them eat cake."

Dictatorship in the workplace is injustice in the workplace.

Whoever submits to it does so only out of necessity, not desire or free choice.

 

[KeepTalking]

Let's see... submit, or die?
So hard to choose one's options...

People are free to start their own business, join a co-op, join an ESOP (there are thousands of ESOPs, join a company that isn't so dictatorial, and etc.

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

 

[Harry Bosch]

People are free to start their own business, join a co-op, join an ESOP (there are thousands of ESOPs, join a company that isn't so dictatorial, and etc.

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

Yea, my sister worked for one of the biggest ESOPs in the country. She loved it. She was empowered. She had a higher salary and much higher retirement than people at peer companies. But she still had a boss. She still had to perform at her work. I actually would favor lower the barriers to start an ESOP. But again, I want choice to be available as an option.

 

[untermensche]

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

Yea, my sister worked for one of the biggest ESOPs in the country. She loved it. She was empowered. She had a higher salary and much higher retirement than people at peer companies. But she still had a boss. She still had to perform at her work. I actually would favor lower the barriers to start an ESOP. But again, I want choice to be available as an option.

Having a supervisory role does not necessarily make you a boss.

It all depends on where objectives originate.

If they originate in the minds of a few dictators then those below them in a rigid power structure are bosses carrying out the dictates from above.

But if objectives originate in the democratic will of the entire workplace then they are not dictates but freely negotiated and agreed upon.

 

[KeepTalking]

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

Yea, my sister worked for one of the biggest ESOPs in the country. She loved it. She was empowered. She had a higher salary and much higher retirement than people at peer companies. But she still had a boss. She still had to perform at her work. I actually would favor lower the barriers to start an ESOP. But again, I want choice to be available as an option.

The salary is good, but not the best in the area for my position, once I get some more experience with Angular 2 I will likely jump ship to up my pay. Retirement is still 401k based, but with profit-sharing baked in, you don't otherwise have to contribute to 401k in order to get the profit sharing, but it gets paid out through 401k. In general, I enjoy working here, but it doesn't feel a whole lot different than working for any other company (other than a startup I worked for a decade ago). If I were an agent with voting shares, I might feel differently, but I will never be that.

 

[Elixir]

People are free to start their own business, join a co-op, join an ESOP (there are thousands of ESOPs, join a company that isn't so dictatorial, and etc.

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

I think I AM an ESOP. The only two people who actually have money in it are myself and one partner . A 2% share was given to a guy who advised us back in the startup phase. But 20% of it is owned by our COO, which was given to her for performance over 8 years.
We have offered shares to other employees, but have ended up buying them out eventually because they don't hold up their end by acting like vested partners.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

I think I AM an ESOP. The only two people who actually have money in it are myself and one partner . A 2% share was given to a guy who advised us back in the startup phase. But 20% of it is owned by our COO, which was given to her for performance over 8 years.
We have offered shares to other employees, but have ended up buying them out eventually because they don't hold up their end by acting like vested partners.

And that is one of the main reasons that large groups that are democracy are very inefficient. It's very hard to find all the people that believe in the situation the same. Most companies start out small and you have a few owners who put in the effort for the product but nobody else has the zeal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I work for an ESOP, which has voting shares for a limited number of agents. The agents elect the board, who elect the president. The board is just as stodgy as any other capitalist corporation without ESOP and voting shares, but our current president is a pretty cool guy. Not sure how he got into that spot, he was already the president when I started here.

I think I AM an ESOP. The only two people who actually have money in it are myself and one partner . A 2% share was given to a guy who advised us back in the startup phase. But 20% of it is owned by our COO, which was given to her for performance over 8 years.
We have offered shares to other employees, but have ended up buying them out eventually because they don't hold up their end by acting like vested partners.

I had a similar situation. I found that when a group is small, it's easy to come together with a common goal (get rich)! It's easy to agree to work the same long hours, be equally vested, take equal risk, and etc. But as people are added, do the additional workers have the same drive? The same culture? My first company basically imploded when we added one guy who refused to work weekends. Everyone else was willing to work weekends. But he wasn't. But he wanted an equal share in the company. Once owner/workers are added who don't share the culture of the founders - the company will struggle.

 

[Elixir]

I think I AM an ESOP. The only two people who actually have money in it are myself and one partner . A 2% share was given to a guy who advised us back in the startup phase. But 20% of it is owned by our COO, which was given to her for performance over 8 years.
We have offered shares to other employees, but have ended up buying them out eventually because they don't hold up their end by acting like vested partners.

I had a similar situation. I found that when a group is small, it's easy to come together with a common goal (get rich)! It's easy to agree to work the same long hours, be equally vested, take equal risk, and etc. But as people are added, do the additional workers have the same drive? The same culture? My first company basically imploded when we added one guy who refused to work weekends. Everyone else was willing to work weekends. But he wasn't. But he equal share in the company. Once owner/workers are added who don't share the culture of the founders - the company will struggle.

We even foresaw that as a probable development, and still fell victim. The Company survived (partly because of the pre-arranged resolution that stated an algorithm for buyout value in the event that a vested person wanted to leave) but our survival was mostly a matter of luck in a couple of situations.

Our evolutionary heritage as a species that thrived in small tribal groups, still hangs over us as a limiting factor.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think I AM an ESOP. The only two people who actually have money in it are myself and one partner . A 2% share was given to a guy who advised us back in the startup phase. But 20% of it is owned by our COO, which was given to her for performance over 8 years.
We have offered shares to other employees, but have ended up buying them out eventually because they don't hold up their end by acting like vested partners.

And that is one of the main reasons that large groups that are democracy are very inefficient. It's very hard to find all the people that believe in the situation the same. Most companies start out small and you have a few owners who put in the effort for the product but nobody else has the zeal.

I agree with you. I would say that larger for profit companies also become more and more inefficient as they grow (this is offset somewhat by their ability to capitalize on economies of scale). However, the difference is that it's very easy and common for larger companies to break up, scale down, go bankrupt, and etc. It's very difficult for larger ESOPs to breakup.

 

[LordKiran]

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

Could you elaborate? Obedience or being shot are two options. I take it you mean something different?

Dictatorships are not voluntary.

Voluntary in this case meaning "Not enforced under pain of death, exile, imprisonment, ect."

C'mon DZ don't play Loren's pedantry game. You know what Harry means. =/

It is by no means a stretch of logic to assume that nobody considers being executed a viable option.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And these delegates won't be a government, they'll be a *blankout*.

They 'll be delegates, elected to discuss and settle particular issues and then go home. You fascist are obsessed with masters, aren't you?

And these delegates as a whole would be considered a *blankout*. They wouldn't be a government simply because you say they aren't. Just like if I were to say that my cat is a dog it now means I have a dog in my house. A dog that uses a litter box, only wags its tail when irritated, says "meow", etc, but still a dog.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are making dictatorship always evil by tossing out an obviously not-evil case.

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

Quit thumping your anarchist bible.

Bringing in children is not pathetic, it's a simple rebuttal of your position. You asserted A => B. I showed a A that wasn't a B. However, you are reacting as if we committed blasphemy--the standard hallmark of those who work on faith rather than reason.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's not a dictatorship if a person has options.

Let's see... submit, or die?
So hard to choose one's options...

You don't like boss A, you go to work for boss B instead.

Dictatorship with choice.

 

[untermensche]

Dictatorship IS always evil.

You are desperately trying to defend evil.

Bringing in children is pathetic. Really pathetic. It is unbelievably juvenile. But you are too uneducated to understand.

We are talking about how people should behave in the working world, not the home.

Just because you are a perpetual child that does not mean the work your parents did to try to make you a man was evil. Only that it failed.

Quit thumping your anarchist bible.

Bringing in children is not pathetic, it's a simple rebuttal of your position. You asserted A => B. I showed a A that wasn't a B. However, you are reacting as if we committed blasphemy--the standard hallmark of those who work on faith rather than reason.

This is not a matter of simple logic.

It is a matter of morality.

And in the organized study of human morality children are ALWAYS considered separately as an entity unto themselves. For good reasons that people who study human morality understand.

You want to stand the entire modern understanding of morality on it's head.

I have no Anarchist bible, just an understanding of morality.

The master/slave relationship is immoral.

The dictator/dictated to relationship is immoral.

It doesn't have to be said but we are talking about relationships among adults.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Quit thumping your anarchist bible.

Bringing in children is not pathetic, it's a simple rebuttal of your position. You asserted A => B. I showed a A that wasn't a B. However, you are reacting as if we committed blasphemy--the standard hallmark of those who work on faith rather than reason.

This is not a matter of simple logic.

It is a matter of morality.

And in the organized study of human morality children are ALWAYS considered separately as an entity unto themselves. For good reasons that people who study human morality understand.

You want to stand the entire modern understanding of morality on it's head.

I have no Anarchist bible, just an understanding of morality.

The master/slave relationship is immoral.

The dictator/dictated to relationship is immoral.

It doesn't have to be said but we are talking about relationships among adults.

And where the two sides are disagreeing is the morality between two adults each making free choices. You don't like it that people have free choice to decide their life.

 

[untermensche]

And where the two sides are disagreeing is the morality between two adults each making free choices. You don't like it that people have free choice to decide their life.

Within a dictatorial structure those at the top giving orders are free.

All the rest are servants.

People do not willfully become servants. They only do so out of necessity.

 

[iolo]

They 'll be delegates, elected to discuss and settle particular issues and then go home. You fascist are obsessed with masters, aren't you?

And these delegates as a whole would be considered a *blankout*. They wouldn't be a government simply because you say they aren't. Just like if I were to say that my cat is a dog it now means I have a dog in my house. A dog that uses a litter box, only wags its tail when irritated, says "meow", etc, but still a dog.

Delegates are sent there to discuss and decide single issues, then go home. That's why we call them delegates. Won't they let you into English classes under Trump?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And these delegates as a whole would be considered a *blankout*. They wouldn't be a government simply because you say they aren't. Just like if I were to say that my cat is a dog it now means I have a dog in my house. A dog that uses a litter box, only wags its tail when irritated, says "meow", etc, but still a dog.

Delegates are sent there to discuss and decide single issues, then go home. That's why we call them delegates. Won't they let you into English classes under Trump?

They decide issues, much like a government would. Except that you insist that they aren't a government because you say they aren't. Wow.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And where the two sides are disagreeing is the morality between two adults each making free choices. You don't like it that people have free choice to decide their life.

Within a dictatorial structure those at the top giving orders are free.

All the rest are servants.

People do not willfully become servants. They only do so out of necessity.

Except if you are defining people that must work as slaves that applies to even the dictators in most businesses, so by your definition, dictators aren't free either. The top down structure doesn't come from capitalism, it comes simply from the most efficient way to organize a large group of people.