Speaking of conservatives, I was checking out /r/conservative on reddit and came across this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/80xedm/south_african_parliament_votes_to_seize_land/duyzjq6/

It's kinda funny and telling about American conservatism. "It's so weird how people who actually live in the places I'm writing hysterical rants about don't agree with me. Is it because I don't know ****? No, it's they are wrong!

I don't think Trump actually has political commitments. He just says ****. I guarantee he'll roll back on what he said in a day or two here.

Well that's certainly true.

It's not playing the Devil's Advocate if you're sincerely curious about something.


I'd like to give this a good treatment but I don't have time. There's a lot you need to understand about how and why we manage businesses the way we do, why we structure businesses the way we do, how that's all tied together with classism and capitalism and anti-collectivism / union-busting and frequently even racism and anti-immigration.

So one really important thing to understand is that there are many business structures other than the one we [are legally forced to] use today. For example, a cooperative, which is a self-organized affiliation of like minded people pursuing a shared objective. Such a structure is necessarily less authoritarian than conventional modern corporations because power and ownership is not, and cannot be, invested in one person. Exactly who is said to be cooperating, and how specifically they self-select leadership, varies from cooperative to cooperative, but the inevitable mode is some form of management by democracy. This probably sounds super weird to you, but the thing is, cooperatives are not a new idea. They are pre-historic. If you value such a thing, a cooperative is about as close as you can get today to the "natural state" of human organization.

If that doesn't work for you then maybe serfdom would, a model that grants workers access to productive capital at a set rate and entitles the workers to their surplus. Workers are "managed" by the individual pursuit of wealth.

Anyway, the point is, the way we structure businesses today is just one of many possible ways. There's some good data that cooperatives are at least as good, for the record, so the particular way we choose to structure most businesses isn't even obviously better than the known alternatives.


So let's say you were a member of a workers' cooperative. You're personally, financially invested in your company - and I'm not talking about piddly little ISOs, I'm talking about a vote that counts, and financial security that's made or broken by how well your company does. What would you want managers to do? Your personal best interest is to maximize your contribution to the company. So you'd want a manager who can advise you how to do that. You'd want them to be diplomats, for sure, so they can help you collaborate with other teams. You'd want them to be someone you professionally respect, someone you trust to decide issues fairly. You'd want them to effectively represent your interests, someone you think will make good decisions for you when you are absent, so you can focus on your own area of expertise.

In other words, the ideal manager for a personally invested worker is a servant-leader. It is a person who offers leadership as a service, which is demanded by the workers because it is in their interest to use those services. A workers' cooperative will select for managers of this type because, in this situation, the management works at the behest of the workers.

Conventionally structured businesses do not work like this. The key difference is that the workers at conventional businesses are not entitled to their surplus; instead, per capitalism, the surplus belongs to the capitalists. What that means is, workers have no rational incentive to actually work hard under capitalism. That is is the basis of all modern business management: a reactionary measure to overcome the paralyzing fear that workers aren't working hard enough. Far from providing enabling leadership, companies instead optimize for managers who are whip-crackers and glorified security guards, tasked with keeping the troops marching toward management priorities. Just to make this clear, that's pretty much how management has to work under capitalism, with businesses structured the authoritarian way we tend to structure them. The sole purpose of a business under capitalism is to extract as much value from its workers as possible. People don't like being exploited. So, yeah, if those business are going to work at all, your managers are going to end up a shade of Soviet commissar.

If you change the system so the incentives for productivity go to the workers, rather than going to the owners and senior managers, then management would necessarily change.

Thanks Jon! I definitely was curious. I actually didn't know there was a framework to describe this kind of stuff. I suppose it just shows my ignorance having lived under the 'monoculture' of capitalist ideology that I just assumed all the other possibilities were simply utopian or hypothetical.

Reading through what you wrote about bosses being forced to motivate people through other means than actually providing useful leadership reminded me of this:

[quote="New Soviet man", Wikipedia]
Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism. The selfless new man was willing to sacrifice his life for good causes.[/quote]

"Employee of the Month"

Now what good is "democratic" capitalism if it just leads to a bunch of islands of corporate totalitarianism. I think you've made this point before, but what you've described here sounds awfully like that.

I can see why these ideas are dangerous. If the Democratic party ever began to seriously think about making the country more democratic in practice...

That's the conservative trap right there. Most socialist ideas are cynical, in fact: the express goal of socialism is to increase economic efficiency, and the primary means of achieving this is by changing which behaviors result in financial reward or financial punishment, specifically taking advantage of the belief that people will generally work toward their own interest foremost.

Defenders of capitalism, on the other hand, are wildly idealistic. They generally believe that capitalists will "somehow" eventually do the right thing, even if it's not in their personal interest. They believe the market will eventually solve every problem, even their own externalities. Oh, and - what are you complaining about, haven't you noticed how many brown people can afford TVs now?

The idea that socialism is a wide-eyed unrealistic utopian ideal that will never work in reality, and that capitalism is by contrast a stable, battle-worn system reflective of the natural order of man, is conservative propaganda. In reality it's precisely the other way around. Capitalism is a dangerously unstable system, engineered to entrench obsolete powers, which by threat of death compels people to toil with no incentive for efficiency or to improve their efforts. It's a sick joke.



Yep.



Yep.

Suddenly the myth of the United States as an 'exceptional' country strikes me very clearly now as simply doubling down on our mistakes.

sorry guys

But within the United States, the picture painted by would-be reformers is somewhat different. At least from what I hear, two of the most pressing concerns are:

1. Campaign finance reform
2. Gerrymandering

But from what you've told me, that actually won't do a huge amount to make a dent in addressing all the shortcomings you've explained.

Of course what's even worse is that these two things seem almost insurmountable problems, despite all the attention they receive.

They try very hard to make us feel like they're insurmountable problems. Pew research* polls started in 1935, and the contrast from then to today is stark: Americans then were much more optimistic than they are today by huge margins. Part of propaganda, and in many ways, the most effective propaganda, is propaganda that makes people feel change and progress are impossible.

Ahh everything I post on my phone has horrible typos.

Sounds like a vicious cycle.

The DNC's got us in a death grip!

US News (hmm) did a study and found that California has the lowest quality of life and Fox News reported on it.

Almost every line of this story feels like propaganda.

[quote=Fox News]
Awards season is in full swing in California, and the Golden State just took home a booby prize of its own.

California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News, ranking behind New Jersey (49th) and Indiana (48th).

The ignominious honor reflects California's low marks in the sub-categories of environmental quality and social engagement. The latter category measures voting participation and community bonds.

Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable, U.S. News suggested.

"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," the magazine wrote in a blurb accompanying the results.

One way to measure quality life is whether residents can even afford to have a roof over their heads, and by that standard, California is failing.

Regarding its budget, California does have a balanced budget under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, but the Standard & Poor's rating agency recently warned that the good times won't last.

"California's finances are roaring back," the agency's report said. "History would suggest, however, that any fiscal renaissance will be temporary."

If the stock market shifts from gains to losses, Standard & Poor's said, the budget could be negatively impacted in a major way because about half of the state's revenue comes from the wealthiest 1% in California.

California finished No. 43 in fiscal stability, No. 46 in opportunity, and No. 38 in infrastructure. It posted relatively high marks in health care (11th), economy (4th), and crime and corrections (28th).

California ranked No. 32 among all U.S. states overall, behind New York (25th), New Jersey (19th), and Florida (15th).

Which state has the best quality of life?

Iowa, which scored highly in infrastructure and health care, took the top spot overall.
[/quote]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/01/california-has-worst-quality-life-in-us-study-says.html

It's like Fox News believes their audience has an inherent need to feel like the blue states are failing.

Sounds objective to me

The thing about CA to is, it's an incredibly large state with an enormous population, really complex politics and lots of stuff going on. Compared to Nebraska or wherever, where there's nothing to the economy but corn. So naturally it has a bunch of really complex problems.

Also recently was talking about CA's economy. Despite being "high tax" and "oppressive to business", CA still generates more entrepreneurial startups and jobs than basically all red states, Texas included. The report curtly summarized it as "tax is not the only incentive for business".

Because US law lets people domicile their companies in tax shelter flyover states while the founders and executives get to live and factually conduct business in a high tax state that doesn’t suck to live in.

https://www.facebook.com/molonlabeind/videos/1832945886736251/

The thing that's disturbing today, is this is the norm for "post-secondary education" for working class people.

7.4 million views? For this dreck?

This should concern us.

i dunno man some of the smartest people i know watch bar rescue and rupaul's drag race

"After talking with some liberal acquaintances who said this or that, I took to the liberry"

*close tab*

I got as far as seeing his hat

You probably made the right choice.

For those too sane to sit through that, this is the gist:

Around 2009 the dictionary definition of fascist changed to say it was far right. Before the leftist started changung words, dictionaries represented fascism correctly as a far-left ideology, because it said totalitarianism and suppression of dissent which means it fit antifa. Also Hitler created free stuff and universal health care so Bernie Sanders is literally Hitler.

This is what and how MAGAland America learns about topics. We should be afraid.

So Trump is doubling down on trade war bull****.

Good luck to us. Tariff the EU, good choice moron.

Makes sense to me. The horseshoe theory was always stupid, so obviously an excessively stupid person will make it extra-horseshoed.

I don't think he's a horseshoe guy, I mean, he probably thinks the Nazis had a few good ideas there too.

By the way, there was a massive strike recently in West Virginia: underpaid, mostly women, teachers led a massive strike statewide and won a pay increase. It's actually pretty important, as a bunch of underprivileged women fought authority in an actually challenging way, an actual expression of democracy that led to tangible results.

So of course nobody is talking about it.

eh

I like how he's trying to frame it as a national security thing... 'if you don't have steel, you don't have a country' or whatever.

Trump knows iron comes from the ground, right? It's not going anywhere. You can buy cheap Chinese steel. Then, if China becomes more belligerent, you've already got their steel and can make a whole lot more of your own. That's how resource reserves work.

If you're going to engage in protectionism, it should be to protect value-add industries whose expertise can become permanently lost due to unfair foreign competition. That is the kind of business you want to keep, the kind of business that is strategically significant. Trump is doing the exact opposite: his trade agenda is aimed at the bottom of the supply chain, zero value-add raw materials and low value-add components. It's going to be good for the miners and the steel mills, but everybody else will take a bath - from high tech alloy manufacturers, to aerospace, to government infrastructure projects. It's a free 25% price hike for the US steel industry and a distinctively unfree price hike on basically everything the US makes and exports.

e.g. good luck fixing the Chinese government-propped injection molding monopoly, you just made the next planned US injection molding site 25% more expensive to build.

But you should know, I'm only making fun of Trump. I'm not complaining about this. If there's one country on Earth that takes a stiff dicking from US raw materials consumption, it's Canada. For decades we've seen once-competitive Canadian businesses get shuttered, the brains moving to the US, and the brawn moving to Mexico. The only thing we have left is digging up rocks, and chopping down sticks, and sending them south. If Canada doesn't have access to those fat juicy US rock and stick markets anymore, maybe it'll force us to wake up, realize what we've done, and start building things again. Maybe, if we're really lucky, the next Blackberry won't turn into a joke. Maybe the next ATi won't get bought up by the US. Here's hoping.

Damn. In my attempt to better control my out of control posting habit on this board, I unsubscribed to all threads, but as a result, I no longer get emails of what Eversor actually says every time he takes it back.

Also, the biggest long-term threat to the US economy is Amazon, anyway. Not even just the risk they'll corner retail and logistics, but the fact that Amazon has been given legal impunity for selling and distributing counterfeit goods. It's pretty hard for anybody in your country to add value when your retail monopoly prefers to sell and promote illegal duplicates of your product.

Y'all should probably fix that.

Selfish question: There are so many things about the corporate workplace that this clarifies, which only seemed mysterious to me before. As somebody who is (not the moment, but probably will soon to be stuck) in the (tech) corporate workforce for a good chunk of his life, is there anything out there in the way of books or some kind of academic literature that has more of these clarifying insights? I feel that this kind of alternative framework could go a long way toward helping workers from being exploited, simply because most of this stuff just gets explained away as being "the breaks". But then I see people such as my father, who spent a career working for a corporation, and is a hard worker, but always laments having that work basically appropriated from him either by his boss, or some other person who takes all the credit simply by more shameless self-promotion. And I can also see why I've always admired how consultants can get away with keeping their (some) of their intellectual property, since they basically aren't any worse off than surfs, whereas corporate workers don't even get to keep their surplus.

I suppose at the end of the day it all comes down to the quality of one's personal network in navigating these waters, because knowing the right people can probably make you marketable enough to make them less relevant. But I still think some kind of survival guide could be helpful for people to at least have as something to fall back on in order to make sense of this mess.

it was dumb and hypocritical :p

I wouldn't know where to begin, sorry. I doubt there are many heterodox business management textbooks.

The only "survival guide" that I know of is the Communist Manifesto.

also, i didn't realize anyone/everyone could see my original posts. eeep!

Haha I knew this was coming.

I can't see them anymore because I unsubscribed from email notifications, but yeah, there have been times when I would get emails containing Eversor posts, only for the link to send me to a redacted version.

i should probably learn to be less anal and stop editing my posts so much, or learn to be more anal and start getting it right the first time

My actual posts are far more offensive than anything you've edited away, from what I've seen.

Yup, I don't buy now from Amazon, I've received too many scam orders and dealing with customer service is a pain.