Classical Corporatism is decentralized bottom-up though you probably won’t like it because it doesn’t call for abolition of employee-employer relations, but rather for their cooperation. The idea of abolishing employee-employer relations sounds nice, but I’m a firm believer in hierarchy and there will always be people above to follow and people below to command. Maybe I’m cynical, or maybe I’m just a realist. I don’t know.
I think employee cooperatives may well decide to give one or two people employer-like power for a time, especially when certain types of businesses are starting up, but I'm just speculating.
There are valid arguments for why some sort of hierarchy is always necessary. After all, plenty of decentralized societies with no organized central governments have fallen to those that do.
As always, it boils down to how leaders are chosen, and how they can be removed.
Well, both are anti-free market approaches aimed at achieving the common good. I tend to prefer some distributed democratic cooperative socialism (allowing for a variety of ownership schemes on a small scale basis), but that is a rather long term goal I fear.
I’m fine with Cooperatives, this system of Distributism fully supports cooperatives, but I would rather see them compete alongside traditional businesses instead of replacing them.
I believe what I articulated is consistent with distribution (intentionally so). I would though like to replace large scale private corporations as inconsistent with the common good.
That would be ideal, even though corporations like Amazon do provide a service. I wouldn’t have nearly as many books if it wasn’t for Amazon, but perhaps that can be replaced with a decentralized semi-hierarchical cooperative federation of employees and employers.
Was supposed to say distributism. Autocorrupt is biased against the term. We could get to your vision along the way to mine then decide from there- deal?
I'd love to see them given a real chance to compete alongside traditional businesses. That would probably require a government that wouldn't allow those traditional businesses to crush the new co-ops right out of the gate.
Wolff talks about this in his book, "Democracy at Work."
You should look into Distributism, I think you would find it interesting. It does come from Catholicism, but one doesn’t have to be a Catholic to study it.
Lots of big issues, but there is nothing I can object to. I DO believe in capitalism. However, what is concurrent in the US is NOT capitalism, at least not a proper way to realize capitalism. Capitalism has a good foundation at the start, as it follows human nature. What Adam Smith did not talk about was that capitalists, producers, retailers, and consumers are also humans and share the same society. If capitalists and bosses treat their employees well (many do), the relationship between employers and employees can be a lot better. Ancient Chinese teachings about business were few and I don't know much besides those depicted in novels and dramas. The theme has always been that employers have to treat employees as family. If not, even the brothers and sisters of the employers can conspire against the big bosses. The Western business schools focus on numbers and treating employees as a necessary cost, no different from a machine used for production.
Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism, etc., have all sorts of definitions and branding. However, if there is no significant portion of humanism and genuine concerns about people's lives, whatever ism it may be would fail just the same. What has sickened the USA is very similar to the Middle East crisis in the sense that the Jews of Israel are unable to acquire real peace and prosperity because they treat Palestinians like trash, while the US capitalists and power elites treat we small potatoes as subjects needing psychological influencing or ranch animals needing to be fed. They think circus and bread would work. Ancient Roman power elites at least understood that the public needed entertainment and food. Modern American capitalists and power elites, seemed to be ignorant or unconcerned about people's needs. We are either laborers, producers, or consumers. Money and material flows so everybody should be happy. How come you are not happy?
A lot of people confuse capitalism with markets. Every economic system has markets. For that matter, I said nothing about sole proprietorships because I have nothing against them so long as the proprietor is the one doing the actual work.
Damned straight people should be able to be in business for themselves and reap the rewards of their own work.
Free markets and the withering away of the state: mobiles above cognitive-trap playpens, rotating slowly, forever out of reach.
A system that concentrates wealth and power is going to do that until it breaks, whatever it is named, whomever mans the levers.
A better system, many better systems, that give no one the power to coerce others, have been imagined. The difficulty lies in bringing them to life. I am aware of eight well-funded co-op startups in my metro area these past ten years or so, five of which tanked, three of which “succeeded” and sold out in six years or less. Sold out their ideas, sold out themselves and their clients, sold out their communities, sold out their children. Sold out. One of them earned their hundred workers nearly $90,000 each, another made nine people fairly well-to-do. For a while.
The revolution we seek is a change in the way we think. Until we define success in cooperative terms, it will be defined as lording it over others to their detriment and one’s own enrichment. Until we change that, nothing changes.
I've always considered it strange that people will insist that they live in a democracy when, for a third of most days, they submit to a totalitarian regime.
Of course, they tell me, they go to work voluntarily. They could quit. If they want to eat, however, they'll likely be going to serve some other totalitarian regime. Cool and normal.
The "Free" Market can be summed up by this image: a kneeling worker holds an empty bowl while a boss points a gun at their head and asks, "Tell me again, how much do you think your labour is worth?" We could mark the bowl, "Law of Wages".
As an office jockey for a small party that has fully adopted Wolff's teaching in its platform, I just want to say that without a fighting front, a respect for the immediate material needs of workers, the policy and politicking like we have done has been largely useless.
What do you think of Corporatism?
I detest it, of course. Too authoritarian and tyrannical for me.
You’re thinking of Fascist Corporatism.
Classical Corporatism is decentralized bottom-up though you probably won’t like it because it doesn’t call for abolition of employee-employer relations, but rather for their cooperation. The idea of abolishing employee-employer relations sounds nice, but I’m a firm believer in hierarchy and there will always be people above to follow and people below to command. Maybe I’m cynical, or maybe I’m just a realist. I don’t know.
I think employee cooperatives may well decide to give one or two people employer-like power for a time, especially when certain types of businesses are starting up, but I'm just speculating.
There are valid arguments for why some sort of hierarchy is always necessary. After all, plenty of decentralized societies with no organized central governments have fallen to those that do.
As always, it boils down to how leaders are chosen, and how they can be removed.
I'll check my library and see if the have Wolfe on the shelves.
But I was thinking about checkout of a book on MMT first.
Your thoughts dear commentors
Nice. Interested to see your answer on corporatism question above.
See above. I don't understand why anyone would think corporatism had anything to do with what I was advocating, other than being an opposing system.
Well, both are anti-free market approaches aimed at achieving the common good. I tend to prefer some distributed democratic cooperative socialism (allowing for a variety of ownership schemes on a small scale basis), but that is a rather long term goal I fear.
I’m fine with Cooperatives, this system of Distributism fully supports cooperatives, but I would rather see them compete alongside traditional businesses instead of replacing them.
I believe what I articulated is consistent with distribution (intentionally so). I would though like to replace large scale private corporations as inconsistent with the common good.
That would be ideal, even though corporations like Amazon do provide a service. I wouldn’t have nearly as many books if it wasn’t for Amazon, but perhaps that can be replaced with a decentralized semi-hierarchical cooperative federation of employees and employers.
Was supposed to say distributism. Autocorrupt is biased against the term. We could get to your vision along the way to mine then decide from there- deal?
Deal.
I'd love to see them given a real chance to compete alongside traditional businesses. That would probably require a government that wouldn't allow those traditional businesses to crush the new co-ops right out of the gate.
Wolff talks about this in his book, "Democracy at Work."
You should look into Distributism, I think you would find it interesting. It does come from Catholicism, but one doesn’t have to be a Catholic to study it.
Sources for Distributism:
1. Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum
2. GK Chesterton
3. Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State
Lots of big issues, but there is nothing I can object to. I DO believe in capitalism. However, what is concurrent in the US is NOT capitalism, at least not a proper way to realize capitalism. Capitalism has a good foundation at the start, as it follows human nature. What Adam Smith did not talk about was that capitalists, producers, retailers, and consumers are also humans and share the same society. If capitalists and bosses treat their employees well (many do), the relationship between employers and employees can be a lot better. Ancient Chinese teachings about business were few and I don't know much besides those depicted in novels and dramas. The theme has always been that employers have to treat employees as family. If not, even the brothers and sisters of the employers can conspire against the big bosses. The Western business schools focus on numbers and treating employees as a necessary cost, no different from a machine used for production.
Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism, etc., have all sorts of definitions and branding. However, if there is no significant portion of humanism and genuine concerns about people's lives, whatever ism it may be would fail just the same. What has sickened the USA is very similar to the Middle East crisis in the sense that the Jews of Israel are unable to acquire real peace and prosperity because they treat Palestinians like trash, while the US capitalists and power elites treat we small potatoes as subjects needing psychological influencing or ranch animals needing to be fed. They think circus and bread would work. Ancient Roman power elites at least understood that the public needed entertainment and food. Modern American capitalists and power elites, seemed to be ignorant or unconcerned about people's needs. We are either laborers, producers, or consumers. Money and material flows so everybody should be happy. How come you are not happy?
A lot of people confuse capitalism with markets. Every economic system has markets. For that matter, I said nothing about sole proprietorships because I have nothing against them so long as the proprietor is the one doing the actual work.
Damned straight people should be able to be in business for themselves and reap the rewards of their own work.
Free markets and the withering away of the state: mobiles above cognitive-trap playpens, rotating slowly, forever out of reach.
A system that concentrates wealth and power is going to do that until it breaks, whatever it is named, whomever mans the levers.
A better system, many better systems, that give no one the power to coerce others, have been imagined. The difficulty lies in bringing them to life. I am aware of eight well-funded co-op startups in my metro area these past ten years or so, five of which tanked, three of which “succeeded” and sold out in six years or less. Sold out their ideas, sold out themselves and their clients, sold out their communities, sold out their children. Sold out. One of them earned their hundred workers nearly $90,000 each, another made nine people fairly well-to-do. For a while.
The revolution we seek is a change in the way we think. Until we define success in cooperative terms, it will be defined as lording it over others to their detriment and one’s own enrichment. Until we change that, nothing changes.
I've always considered it strange that people will insist that they live in a democracy when, for a third of most days, they submit to a totalitarian regime.
Of course, they tell me, they go to work voluntarily. They could quit. If they want to eat, however, they'll likely be going to serve some other totalitarian regime. Cool and normal.
The "Free" Market can be summed up by this image: a kneeling worker holds an empty bowl while a boss points a gun at their head and asks, "Tell me again, how much do you think your labour is worth?" We could mark the bowl, "Law of Wages".
As an office jockey for a small party that has fully adopted Wolff's teaching in its platform, I just want to say that without a fighting front, a respect for the immediate material needs of workers, the policy and politicking like we have done has been largely useless.