Damn democracy, slowing everything down! We should just put ONE GUY in charge and everyone would have to do what he says - That would get things done! UR right, People are stupid and need to be told what to do by someone like you because you understand supply and demand.
Here how democracy works: you win some, you lose some. Most adults won't throw a temper tantrum if they don't get their way.
Don't like democracy? Too bad, you don't get a vote (just like Capitalism).
I watched this vid six months ago and don't remember it so I'm not going to debate specific points.
Every individual deserves the right to have a say in the decisions that affect them, insofar as they are affected by those decisions - one person, one vote. In groups, like businesses or communities, there will be a popular mandate by the majority. Unless the group decides there must be 100% agreement, some people may not always get what they want.
I can't say one way or the other if you are right or not. I honestly don't know enough about co-operatives or how well they worked when they popped up in history, but if you're going to make arguments like this, it would be much more beneficial to your argument if you could find scientific evidence which supports your position; it would give your position much more weight.
@MapleTreeOfKnowledge Also, if you can find any historical examples of what you've said in this vid happening that would also give your argument more weight, as well.
Just for the record, "democratic" workplaces can make decisions without ever voting. This is a very Western-centric assumption about what democracy even means, when in fact it refers to "common" folks making decisions for themselves. This happened far before Greece. Hence, a democratic place of production can make decisions collectively without voting. And anarchists are about split on this issue in reality; take a look at anarchist sites (avoid YT for (A) knowledge), and you'll find...
that many anarchists think majoritarian voting is consistent with anarchism, whereas many (including myself) do not think that majoritarian voting is consistent with anarchism (I perceive it to be hierarchical). So, your premise in the first place, that an anarchist workplace ( a loaded phrase for sure) would involve employees voting on everything, is one in which I'd take issue. Hell, many anarchists are against work per se, and civilization for that matter.
@comradshaw Its not an assumption , so much as it is a reflection of my interaction with anarchists. This video isnt meant as an attack on all anarchistic theories of economic organization. It is meant to attack a particular idea that has grown in popularity in the market anarchist circles. A kind of watered down neo "mutualism" (Quotes because I can find no connection linking this ideologue to proudhon or classical mutualism ) .
well, in a democratic workplace, they could just hire managers the same as small stock owner companies do. Really, even large corporations are somewhat of a democracy because they are run by a board of directors who vote on runing the company. Its just a very limited one.
There are poor managers everywhere in every company. Many of then have many years good service with the companies they work for and even if the company waned to get rid of them it would be very difficult.
Generally I just take the approach of "Go ahead and try it, comrade!". As long as they are still ultimately market anarchists and limit the scope of their hard-ons for democracy to the intra-firm level, I'm not worried that they'll last more than 6 months in a market society, LOL.
"In capitalism if you are mediocre at management you do not stay there" haha that is so not true to life, so many peple get given high paid jobs just because they no people and conieism
@RevolutionaryJam Well in the first place when I say capitalism I think you know I am talking about something significantly different from the current situation. In a free'er market competition would be must more promenient and firms that hired based of arbitrary qualities would be likely to fail. Also, keep in mind that this is all relative.
I essentially believe in some sort of limited market economy but I'm not really sold on absolute propertarianism, I reckon in a stateless society people will still claim community ownership of parks etc. as building factories will always be more profitable (especially in poor areas) and yes, will sometimes kick out bosses when they become oppressive - if that usually has bad results it will hardly ever happen, if the results are good then no worries
I don't know what you mean by "absolute propertarianism". A communist society has property over vast tracts, as does individualistic property - it's all propertarian, with the scope of property being determined by the relevant society.
Absolute propertarianism is a windmill that don brainpolice has been jousting for over two years now.
Wait, why would it always be more profitable to build a factory than a park, regardless of circumstances? Is it your prediction that no person will ever value a park?
Have you looked at the work of Ricardo Semler btw it's really interesting? I recommend the book "Maverick!" for me it's a manual for the anarchist work place...
I wouldn't speculate on exactly how this kind of thing would work on a large scale, but it reminds me a little bit of the whole fair trade thing; people could get voted out of the marketplace for their labor and despite offering lower cost of production, fail to find outlets with the prevasion of these mob-run firms.
I can't help but feel this video argues for statism. All of your arguments could easily apply to the irrationality of the consumer in an capitalist society. Don't we need a state to "efficiently" manage the dumb masses irrational votin-- I mean consuming.
Also, keep in mind that Anarchists advocate for the decentralization of production, thus giving the worker's say more weight in decision making. In such an instance, there actually is utility besides "social duty."
@ZamatoElite First off, how is the consumer "irrational"?
Second, purchasing is not voting. The framework of the voting system is put in place arbitrarilly by some form of authority, whereas purchases do not require this authority. (who decides who's voting, the value of the vote and what to vote on? Those decisions are necessarilly centralized in the first place.)
How do you decentralize within a democratic system when it's existence requires a central authority in the first place?
@ZamatoElite Zamato, there is a HUGE difference. When an individual spends their money, they want to know what they are getting into, what the competitive prices are, what the contract reads, how it fits into their budget, etc. Because their very standard of living is tied into how they spend their money, they monitor their costs much more wisely than they would cast a free vote that, they assume, won't mean much.
But how do you reconcile anti-statism with decentralization of production?
If consumers greatly favor only one or a few firms, and you're not willing to use force to either chastice the large firms or extract money from a third party to give to the small firms, then how do you cause decentralization?
Or, to put it as succinctly as possible: in case of conflict between the two, does pacifism or decentralization take presedence?
you'd get better info than my brain remembers if you visit workplacedemocracy (dot) com. i'm not saying it's the best, it always works, or anything like that. i just know that it's a reality, so people need to recognize that fact and respect it as such. the above 'theoretical debunking' is moot in light of this truth. the objection is purely an opinion.
@StarvingForTruth Ugh , there are no possible examples of a democratic work place working well relative to a free market hierarchical firm. No such free market exists for either firm to exist in. Also, im sorry you dont understand methodology , but thats not my fault. Your cave man gut demand for "evidence" is fucking retarded. I dont need to find a's to know that a is a.
voting can work as long as it is local and decentralised as much as possible.
if you work in a group of say 40 people, and you lose 15 to 25.
are you really gonna have such an us vs them mentality against the other 25 people who you work and interact with closely on a day to day basis?
the basic argument is that its far easier to compromise with people you know and interact with, rather than figures that are not attached to any human that you are familiar with.
My condo association is an excellent example of a small democracy. I know the representatives and the voters, yet I still resent them for forcing me to pay for stupid shit like crap television & lame Christmas parties.
An even smaller democracy is the family. My wife would resent me if I voted to control her spending. That's why we each make our own money, have our own checking account & spend it as we wish. While everyone else I know keeps getting divorced, we remain happy.
@Ilikenuman I dont see good reason to think it will not create an us vs them mentality. But , even if it didnt , if my other arguments were right it would still causes mass unemployment , destroy the price structure of labor, potentially create massive monopolies, ect.
And like I said, being attached to the people you work with comes at the expense of cold hard efficiency.
I don't think there's necessarily anything right or wrong about that model of organization, so long as participation is voluntary and everyone who applies for the job is told up front what it entails.
I personally think the "us vs them"-problem can be mitigated by limiting the extent of imposition of the majority upon the minority. But either way, we can't know for sure how democratic management compares to hierarchical management, until there's a free market to test it on.
Look at the "Mondragon Experiment" it works slave.
Luckyculprit 10 months ago
Damn democracy, slowing everything down! We should just put ONE GUY in charge and everyone would have to do what he says - That would get things done! UR right, People are stupid and need to be told what to do by someone like you because you understand supply and demand.
Here how democracy works: you win some, you lose some. Most adults won't throw a temper tantrum if they don't get their way.
Don't like democracy? Too bad, you don't get a vote (just like Capitalism).
Thanks for the sub btw!
Mars2O84 1 year ago
@Mars2O84
no, you dont get a vote because you dont deserve a say in other people affairs.
and the guy makng this video int arguing for a dictatorship instead
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@SecularNumanist
I watched this vid six months ago and don't remember it so I'm not going to debate specific points.
Every individual deserves the right to have a say in the decisions that affect them, insofar as they are affected by those decisions - one person, one vote. In groups, like businesses or communities, there will be a popular mandate by the majority. Unless the group decides there must be 100% agreement, some people may not always get what they want.
What are you advocating here?
Mars2O84 1 year ago
This is such a stupid video!
DaneVincentVid 1 year ago
Democracy is OK, it's the choices that are mostly crap.
Two dead-ends and I can chose. Just like the US elections. That,s the democracy we see today. Sorry I didn't use any BIG words in this little rant.
arealbladeofgrass 1 year ago
I can't say one way or the other if you are right or not. I honestly don't know enough about co-operatives or how well they worked when they popped up in history, but if you're going to make arguments like this, it would be much more beneficial to your argument if you could find scientific evidence which supports your position; it would give your position much more weight.
MapleTreeOfKnowledge 1 year ago
@MapleTreeOfKnowledge Also, if you can find any historical examples of what you've said in this vid happening that would also give your argument more weight, as well.
MapleTreeOfKnowledge 1 year ago
@MapleTreeOfKnowledge Watch my latest video. It addresses this.
spawktalk 1 year ago
lulz some douche made a video called "bp oil spill would never happen in an anarchy!"
Cause left anarchist society would be a broke ass comune without functioning elecriticy.
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337
At least there would be quality education so kids could learn how to spell "electricity" properly.
Cheap shot on a typo perhaps, but you should really watch Comradshaw's video.
You might learn something beyond this Mises "anarcho-"Capitalism bullshit.
Mars2O84 1 year ago
Just for the record, "democratic" workplaces can make decisions without ever voting. This is a very Western-centric assumption about what democracy even means, when in fact it refers to "common" folks making decisions for themselves. This happened far before Greece. Hence, a democratic place of production can make decisions collectively without voting. And anarchists are about split on this issue in reality; take a look at anarchist sites (avoid YT for (A) knowledge), and you'll find...
comradshaw 1 year ago
that many anarchists think majoritarian voting is consistent with anarchism, whereas many (including myself) do not think that majoritarian voting is consistent with anarchism (I perceive it to be hierarchical). So, your premise in the first place, that an anarchist workplace ( a loaded phrase for sure) would involve employees voting on everything, is one in which I'd take issue. Hell, many anarchists are against work per se, and civilization for that matter.
comradshaw 1 year ago
@comradshaw Its not an assumption , so much as it is a reflection of my interaction with anarchists. This video isnt meant as an attack on all anarchistic theories of economic organization. It is meant to attack a particular idea that has grown in popularity in the market anarchist circles. A kind of watered down neo "mutualism" (Quotes because I can find no connection linking this ideologue to proudhon or classical mutualism ) .
spawktalk 1 year ago
well, in a democratic workplace, they could just hire managers the same as small stock owner companies do. Really, even large corporations are somewhat of a democracy because they are run by a board of directors who vote on runing the company. Its just a very limited one.
Spillers72 2 months ago
Comment removed
comradshaw 1 year ago
"The People": Everyone, and no one.
RadioFreeWisconsin 1 year ago
Have you never heard of the Peter Principle?
There are poor managers everywhere in every company. Many of then have many years good service with the companies they work for and even if the company waned to get rid of them it would be very difficult.
LiamE69 1 year ago
Of course, these "democracies" are still occuring a free market, but I think you made a good point about them not ending the "us vs them" mentality.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
Why is it that you won't use violence?
youngn420 1 year ago
Generally I just take the approach of "Go ahead and try it, comrade!". As long as they are still ultimately market anarchists and limit the scope of their hard-ons for democracy to the intra-firm level, I'm not worried that they'll last more than 6 months in a market society, LOL.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916
aye aye!
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
BAM! take that left wing anarchists!
great vid.
return135 1 year ago
luckily, the USA has an Electoral College for when popular voting goes out of style
AGNOSTICEXTREME 1 year ago
"In capitalism if you are mediocre at management you do not stay there" haha that is so not true to life, so many peple get given high paid jobs just because they no people and conieism
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam Well in the first place when I say capitalism I think you know I am talking about something significantly different from the current situation. In a free'er market competition would be must more promenient and firms that hired based of arbitrary qualities would be likely to fail. Also, keep in mind that this is all relative.
spawktalk 1 year ago
fair play sorry if my tone sound disarriaging,
I essentially believe in some sort of limited market economy but I'm not really sold on absolute propertarianism, I reckon in a stateless society people will still claim community ownership of parks etc. as building factories will always be more profitable (especially in poor areas) and yes, will sometimes kick out bosses when they become oppressive - if that usually has bad results it will hardly ever happen, if the results are good then no worries
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
I don't know what you mean by "absolute propertarianism". A communist society has property over vast tracts, as does individualistic property - it's all propertarian, with the scope of property being determined by the relevant society.
Absolute propertarianism is a windmill that don brainpolice has been jousting for over two years now.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam
Wait, why would it always be more profitable to build a factory than a park, regardless of circumstances? Is it your prediction that no person will ever value a park?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
Have you looked at the work of Ricardo Semler btw it's really interesting? I recommend the book "Maverick!" for me it's a manual for the anarchist work place...
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
Anybody happen to read Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter? That opened my eyes to the failure of Democracy.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar I did.
lengthyounarther 1 year ago
I wouldn't speculate on exactly how this kind of thing would work on a large scale, but it reminds me a little bit of the whole fair trade thing; people could get voted out of the marketplace for their labor and despite offering lower cost of production, fail to find outlets with the prevasion of these mob-run firms.
Guest655321 1 year ago
DEMOCRACY IS MOB RULES THATS IT
amcanmike 1 year ago
I can't help but feel this video argues for statism. All of your arguments could easily apply to the irrationality of the consumer in an capitalist society. Don't we need a state to "efficiently" manage the dumb masses irrational votin-- I mean consuming.
Also, keep in mind that Anarchists advocate for the decentralization of production, thus giving the worker's say more weight in decision making. In such an instance, there actually is utility besides "social duty."
ZamatoElite 1 year ago
@ZamatoElite First off, how is the consumer "irrational"?
Second, purchasing is not voting. The framework of the voting system is put in place arbitrarilly by some form of authority, whereas purchases do not require this authority. (who decides who's voting, the value of the vote and what to vote on? Those decisions are necessarilly centralized in the first place.)
How do you decentralize within a democratic system when it's existence requires a central authority in the first place?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ZamatoElite Zamato, there is a HUGE difference. When an individual spends their money, they want to know what they are getting into, what the competitive prices are, what the contract reads, how it fits into their budget, etc. Because their very standard of living is tied into how they spend their money, they monitor their costs much more wisely than they would cast a free vote that, they assume, won't mean much.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@ZamatoElite
But how do you reconcile anti-statism with decentralization of production?
If consumers greatly favor only one or a few firms, and you're not willing to use force to either chastice the large firms or extract money from a third party to give to the small firms, then how do you cause decentralization?
Or, to put it as succinctly as possible: in case of conflict between the two, does pacifism or decentralization take presedence?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
o ya - peraonally, i count you amongst those masses who are and will continue to be stupid.
most folks consider themselves in that in group, son.
grow up and learn about a topic in advance to pretending you're too smart to even have to bother.
StarvingForTruth 1 year ago
instead of listening to yourself pontificate, why don't you study actual companies actually using this model, and just shut up.
oh ya. unsubscribed. not sure why i ever subbed. you're a self obsessed wanker.
just read about how this is ALREADY working, and shut the fuck up.
StarvingForTruth 1 year ago
@StarvingForTruth
Can you cite an example of these types of firms working?
KathyGurl14 1 year ago
@KathyGurl14
you'd get better info than my brain remembers if you visit workplacedemocracy (dot) com. i'm not saying it's the best, it always works, or anything like that. i just know that it's a reality, so people need to recognize that fact and respect it as such. the above 'theoretical debunking' is moot in light of this truth. the objection is purely an opinion.
StarvingForTruth 1 year ago
@StarvingForTruth WTF THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS DEDUCTIVE DOES NOT MAKE IT SOME KIND OF ARBITRARY OPINION YOU STUPID MOTHER FUCKER.
Anyhow, you are blocked. Enjoy.
spawktalk 1 year ago
@StarvingForTruth Ugh , there are no possible examples of a democratic work place working well relative to a free market hierarchical firm. No such free market exists for either firm to exist in. Also, im sorry you dont understand methodology , but thats not my fault. Your cave man gut demand for "evidence" is fucking retarded. I dont need to find a's to know that a is a.
spawktalk 1 year ago
voting can work as long as it is local and decentralised as much as possible.
if you work in a group of say 40 people, and you lose 15 to 25.
are you really gonna have such an us vs them mentality against the other 25 people who you work and interact with closely on a day to day basis?
the basic argument is that its far easier to compromise with people you know and interact with, rather than figures that are not attached to any human that you are familiar with.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman,
My condo association is an excellent example of a small democracy. I know the representatives and the voters, yet I still resent them for forcing me to pay for stupid shit like crap television & lame Christmas parties.
An even smaller democracy is the family. My wife would resent me if I voted to control her spending. That's why we each make our own money, have our own checking account & spend it as we wish. While everyone else I know keeps getting divorced, we remain happy.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman I dont see good reason to think it will not create an us vs them mentality. But , even if it didnt , if my other arguments were right it would still causes mass unemployment , destroy the price structure of labor, potentially create massive monopolies, ect.
And like I said, being attached to the people you work with comes at the expense of cold hard efficiency.
spawktalk 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
I don't think there's necessarily anything right or wrong about that model of organization, so long as participation is voluntary and everyone who applies for the job is told up front what it entails.
I personally think the "us vs them"-problem can be mitigated by limiting the extent of imposition of the majority upon the minority. But either way, we can't know for sure how democratic management compares to hierarchical management, until there's a free market to test it on.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago