[dohboi]

These seem to be the two great 19th century ideologies that people butt heads over.

Can we get past these old dichotomies and imagine new structures?

Were is one approach, but I welcome discussions of other mechanisms to go beyond older rigid ideologies:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/can ... lves-2015/

"Can We Do It Ourselves?" (2015)

Within modern life exists a paradox: we celebrate democracy as a political system, but not as an economic system, even though our workplaces have a far greater impact on our day to day lives. It's fair to say that most workplaces under capitalist management are organized in an authoritarian fashion, yet this fact is rarely questioned or thought about. Why has it become normal to reject authoritarianism in our governments, while accepting it when we clock into our jobs?

"Can We Do It Ourselves?" asks if it is time to start pushing for a democratic, cooperative way of doing business, showing case studies of businesses who are surviving as democracies within our capitalist system.

[Newfie]

Fair question.

I think it would require some substantial social evolution, more so than a deliberate movement.

[Pops]

I saw a story about eliminating middle management today, sort of a quasi-commie, flattening the heirarchy, we are all one thing. My first thought was wondering which direction the salaries of the eliminated managers would go?

for a minute, LoL

[hvacman]

The movie asks the question - "Can we Do it ourselves?" They seem to suggest that "something" has to change to actually "do it ourselves" - that there is not an economic democracy. Wrong - we have examples of economic democracy all the time. They are called sole proprietors, partnerships, and private corporations. One person decides to be their own boss. Two people decide to be "equal" partners in a new business. Ten people get together to start a corporation. Each puts in $1000 capital. Each gets 10 shares. Each has an equal voice (vote) on how the corporation is managed at the corporation's annual meetings, and an equal share of the corporate profits via dividends. I'm not talking about public corporations, where you can buy in or get out with the click of a mouse to transfer the funds. Private corporations are more like a group marriage - expensive to get in, but usually easier to get in than to get out and real commitment comes along with the capital. Can be good, can be some nasty-infighting.

What, you don't want put in capital, but you want a vote? Now how the heck is that fair? Even the Equal Exchange in the film link is a corporate structure...most co-ops are...you buy stock perhaps with a nominal fee and with "sweat" equity", but you have to buy in and remain invested, or you're out. And guess what, co-ops have the same Bylaws and annual meetings as for-profit corp's, a board of directors, in-fighting, majority rules, and minorities who can feel "PO'ed" and cry "unfair".

You want to work for an Equal-Exchange business? Nothing stopping you at all....go for it. Be a founder. It just takes a shared vision, some capital (or an angel-capitalist), and willingness to take a risk, a LOT of work. The US business and tax laws are set up just fine for doing it. Show me a country where it is easier. Tired of CitiCorp? Form a Credit Union. Food? Start a food co-op. The North Coast Co-op is a great example. Sports equipment? REI wasn't always a national business.

The Swedes in this movie are too connected with what European socialism has done to capitalism. Where ever you are in the US, look around your town. Sole proprietors, partnerships, small private corps are EVERYWHERE, battling it out just fine with the mega-corps.

The US philosopher from Loyola U had it closest. He understood the meaning of consequences - of accountability.

Funny, I didn't see the ideas of even ONE actual small for-profit business owner...anyone who actually successfully started and ran a small business. They almost make you feel like it is rare.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I've "done it myself" for almost 30 years, with a pair of good partners. Most of our clients are also small business owners - most started their own businesses. I'm immersed in economic democracy. So don't tell me it can't be done, or "the bar to admission" is too high. The bar is set just fine. I did it and I've known too many other ordinary people who have done it.

[americandream]

Db

I will keep out of this discussion and instead observe from the sidelines. Like you I am equally interested in a perfection of contemporary social relations to a planet steady state and keep an open mind. My views will simply lock us into Cold War thinking and I unfortunately am learning little in that sort of reductionist exercise.

Having said that It would be good if people could do me a favour and elaborate on their ideas. For example if like Cog they believe in the return of landed economies complete with slaves, with the object to preserve freedom, could they please detail that freedom and how it would work in landed social relations. I would be obliged; Thanks

edit: Cog served as an example as it was easier to compact so please do not fixate on my choice. I simply want you to detail your choice and how it equates with your choice, whether as a fedualist, Luddite, reformist such or other systems that precede capitalism. If you can devise a post capitalist system as evolution contemplates all the better!!!!

[ralfy]

The movie asks the question - "Can we Do it ourselves?" They seem to suggest that "something" has to change to actually "do it ourselves" - that there is not an economic democracy. Wrong - we have examples of economic democracy all the time. They are called sole proprietors, partnerships, and private corporations. One person decides to be their own boss. Two people decide to be "equal" partners in a new business. Ten people get together to start a corporation. Each puts in $1000 capital. Each gets 10 shares. Each has an equal voice (vote) on how the corporation is managed at the corporation's annual meetings, and an equal share of the corporate profits via dividends. I'm not talking about public corporations, where you can buy in or get out with the click of a mouse to transfer the funds. Private corporations are more like a group marriage - expensive to get in, but usually easier to get in than to get out and real commitment comes along with the capital. Can be good, can be some nasty-infighting.

What, you don't want put in capital, but you want a vote? Now how the heck is that fair? Even the Equal Exchange in the film link is a corporate structure...most co-ops are...you buy stock perhaps with a nominal fee and with "sweat" equity", but you have to buy in and remain invested, or you're out. And guess what, co-ops have the same Bylaws and annual meetings as for-profit corp's, a board of directors, in-fighting, majority rules, and minorities who can feel "PO'ed" and cry "unfair".

You want to work for an Equal-Exchange business? Nothing stopping you at all....go for it. Be a founder. It just takes a shared vision, some capital (or an angel-capitalist), and willingness to take a risk, a LOT of work. The US business and tax laws are set up just fine for doing it. Show me a country where it is easier. Tired of CitiCorp? Form a Credit Union. Food? Start a food co-op. The North Coast Co-op is a great example. Sports equipment? REI wasn't always a national business.

The Swedes in this movie are too connected with what European socialism has done to capitalism. Where ever you are in the US, look around your town. Sole proprietors, partnerships, small private corps are EVERYWHERE, battling it out just fine with the mega-corps.

The US philosopher from Loyola U had it closest. He understood the meaning of consequences - of accountability.

Funny, I didn't see the ideas of even ONE actual small for-profit business owner...anyone who actually successfully started and ran a small business. They almost make you feel like it is rare.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I've "done it myself" for almost 30 years, with a pair of good partners. Most of our clients are also small business owners - most started their own businesses. I'm immersed in economic democracy. So don't tell me it can't be done, or "the bar to admission" is too high. The bar is set just fine. I did it and I've known too many other ordinary people who have done it.

The U.S. is not like the world, where most people are poor and can barely access basic needs. Also, from what I know, in terms of numbers small- and medium-sized businesses dominate, but when it comes to assets and earnings large corporations overwhelm. Governments also tend to work with big business because that's the source of their credit.

Given that, we see that economic democracy isn't actually a democracy (where each person gets a vote). In this case, voting is based on wealth.

[dohboi]

Thanks for all the discussion and insights, especially from people 'on the ground' in business like hvacman. So h, do you dismiss the section where they talk about barriers to starting and operating a business based on economic democracy?

That there are some such businesses does not mean that it is easy to break through the various barriers they discuss.

[hvacman]

From my perspective, the major barrier is psychological, not legal or economic. My ex-partner and I started our business 25 years ago with $1K cash contribution each and boot-strapped it from there. I was fortunate to be surrounded from the time I was born by independent business owners on both sides of my family, going back several generations. It's in our family culture to take ownership in our employment. No one a 1%-er - no "family" business passed down through the generations. Everyone has started their own. Paving contractor. Independent brick-mason. mom-pop store owner. Radio station start-up. HVAC systems engineering consultant. My oldest son worked for a web-designer for three years when he left home, then spun off on his own and started and runs several web-based commercial sales and service businesses, completely disconnected with anything any of the rest of us have ever done.

The US-style co-op business model is a very intriguing model. It is truly capitalism in its best and purest form. Customers, employees, managers all actually have ownership - capital invested, savings discounts earned, etc. They all benefit from the co-op's profitability, as profits are returned to the "owners" in various forms of dividends.

Here's a link to the North Coast Co-op - a great example of a successful Co-op that out-competes the Safeways and other for-profit-corp. retail chains. I was a member of for many years when living in Humboldt Co. Pete (pstarr) could also weigh-in, as I'd bet he is a member.

http://www.northcoastco-op.com/about.htm

Below summarizes their principles

As a cooperative business, we adhere to these principles:

• Voluntary and Open Membership
• Democratic Member Control
• Member Economic Participation
• Autonomy and Independence
• Education, Training, and
Information
• Cooperation Among Co-ops
• Concern for Community

Seems to me this fits all the "goals" listed in the movie...but it takes "people" to stop whining and saying generically "we" need to do "something", frequently looking for some magic legal pill from the government to make it easier to start. I can bet the NC Co-op founders and managers - mostly very liberal Democratic-type people - will tell you that government magic legal pills usually just get in the way.

[Pops]

I posted a bunch on co-ops and such here
Transition Town from Scratch
--

I've been hourly, salary, piece-work, freelance and owner/partner.

I made more as owner but wasn't really cut out for it. Neither was my partner, or maybe he was more suited and I was just less so. We enjoyed what we did/do from the creative side but management tasks like motivating sales, and especially employee relations wasn't really our thing.

We had what might have been a complementary view but really didn't work out as such. In my view he seemed to resent every dollar he "gave" to our employees, and I felt more willing to share our success. We were each careful to not be too adamant and compromised reasonably but in the end we were successful, just not satisfied.

I've seen lots of folks who are good at their job go out on their own and fail or even be promoted beyond their aptitude within an organization. It takes a different mind and skillset to be an owner.

Not put too fine a point on it, one needs to be able to look at employees in the business in a very cool and detached way. There is only one reason for employees and it is to make the owner money.

[dohboi]

"There is only one reason for employees and it is to make the owner money."

In the usual model, yes.

But what if the employees are the owners?

[Pops]

I went into it a lot from the optimistic side in the thread linked above, I really like co-ops because folks can be involved or not and still benefit. In the post above I talked a little about why lots of folks just are not interested in the "burden" of ownership.

But regardless of how democratic or flat the hierarchy in theory, the Iron Law of Oligarchy always rules. I think that is why capitalism is so resilient, someone is always going to rule in any event and the market keeps them "honest."

I've only been involved in co-ops in a passive way, Pstarr has been more intimate and will certainly have something to say.

[ennui2]

"regardless of how democratic or flat the hierarchy in theory, the Iron Law of Oligarchy always rules."


One example of a company that claims to have no hierarchy is Valve, the game company. It makes money hand over fist due to Steam, which is like an iTunes for computer-games. The problem is that that business model is pretty low-maintenance after you reach near-monopology status as they have. They used to make actual games but they rarely ever publish new games anymore, instead leaning on update packs for aging games like Team Fortress 2. Meanwhile, they are notorious for issuing release dates that come and go, hence the term "Valve Time". Half Life 3 is the Duke Nukem Forever.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... Valve+Time

I don't know if Valve's inability to release product is directly attributed to its flat organization, but it probably is. Everyone wants to work there, but for selfish reasons. At the end of the day, as far as software engineering goes, they are a pretty wasteful organization that's only propped up by the lucky monopoly of Steam. If they didn't have Steam, the company wouldn't be able to operate that way.

[dohboi]

I'm not sure that capitalism keeps oligarchs honest. Oligarchs, once they get powerful enough, inevitably warp all the rules to their favor so they don't have to be particularly honest anymore.

The actual law of oligarchs is that power corrupts and the concentration of power in a few hands also concentrates that corruption. How could it be different? That's why it seems to be to be always in the interests of nearly everyone to look for mechanisms that destabilize or overturn oligarchic power. But maybe that's just me?

[ennui2]

And then you run into Animal Farm / Won't Get Fooled Again situations where the revolutionaries become just as bad in their own way as what came before, as we've seen most recently in some of (but not all) the Arab Spring regimes.

[sjn]

I think Orlov has it right about the Arab Spring, the ideology at play was Revolutionary Islam*, whether it's better or worse than despotic secular governance probably depends whether you're a "Revolutionary Islamist" or not. As in the topic, it is an alternative, neither Capitalism nor Socialism. The West has had historical periods subsumed by theocratic social organisation, even while feudalism dominated the power structures.

Personally, I think we would do well to look at what social structures occur throughout nature, and learn from what has been proven to work through millions of years of evolution. Humans have a tendency to fixate on ideas and try to force reality to adapt to our hubris.

* Many people just get caught up in the "movement", are carried along by ill defined concepts or slogans, such as "Freedom and Democracy", and end up wondering where it all went.

[Pops]

I'm not sure that capitalism keeps oligarchs honest. Oligarchs, once they get powerful enough, inevitably warp all the rules to their favor so they don't have to be particularly honest anymore.

The actual law of oligarchs is that power corrupts and the concentration of power in a few hands also concentrates that corruption. How could it be different? That's why it seems to be to be always in the interests of nearly everyone to look for mechanisms that destabilize or overturn oligarchic power. But maybe that's just me?

The actual, actual Iron Law of Oligarchy was thunk up by Michels in 1911 after he became disillusioned with some political group he'd joined in the 1800s.
https://archive.org/details/politicalparties00mich
Basically, any organization allowed a hierarchy will breed an oligarchy.


Regardless, I didn't phrase my point well. I simply meant that competition in markets eliminates unprofitable businesses but also the "competition" for the value of the workers labor makes the biz more efficient as well. (Of course, the ownership in a for-profit biz can be as despotic as they can get away with but we know that.)

I think the further you go from a straight for-profit, market based model the less pressure there is to be efficient.
In other setups, like state owned oil Cos, or maybe co-ops, the tendency of any employee to maximize their own take isn't balanced by anyone on the other side of the bargaining table with a similar interest. It is just like any government negotiation, everyone gets what they want because someone else is paying.
Co-ops used to be very popular. Back when there was one feed store in town the owner could basically charge whatever he liked because start up costs for a feed store were high. Ditto grain elevators, meat packers etc. so markups were big. Farmers got together to make pooled purchases and package sales. Of course those pools turned into co-ops. But as these things go in an open market, innovators came along that were more efficient than the co-ops.

I'm not really sure whether co-ops are on the upswing now or down. A couple of years ago was UN "World co-op Year" or some such, they would have more info.

[kanon]

The actual, actual Iron Law of Oligarchy was thunk up by Michels in 1911 after he became disillusioned with some political group he'd joined in the 1800s.
https://archive.org/details/politicalparties00mich
Basically, any organization allowed a hierarchy will breed an oligarchy.

Thanks for the link. Here is a little quote (p360) showing that little has changed.

Notwithstanding this, anarchism, a movement on behalf of liberty, founded on the inalienable right of the human being over his own person, succumbs, no less than the socialist party, to the law of authoritarianism as soon as it abandons the region of pure thought and as soon as its adherents unite to form associations aiming at any sort of political activity. . . .

Whilst anarchism, which presents to us the most abstract and most idealistic vision of the future, has promised to the world an order from which all concentration of power shall be excluded, it has not known how to establish, as a part of anarchist theory, the logical elements of such an order.

[onlooker]

No system can ever be free of corruption if it is run by people. Therefore, any system ,organization or country must have a charter, constitution, codex , contract or whatever you wish to call it. This document will delineate the basic belief and value system of the entity. The values that must be adhered too will safeguard the welfare and well being of all the citizens or members of said entity for perpetuity. Nobody within that entity can ignore or bypass these set of moral codes. People are free to act as long as they act consistent with the moral codes. Also, nobody within the entity will be given too much power or be given power for too long. I believe this could function.

[ennui2]

Personally, I think we would do well to look at what social structures occur throughout nature

And what's that? Things like wolf packs are basically gangs or warlords. That's a utopia?

[dohboi]

I'm not sure what the exact meaning of efficiency is in these contexts. Certainly, modern ag is about the least efficient organizational structure ever devised, if you're measuring calories of energy put into a process versus calories of energy derived from said process. (Estimates vary, but it's either a very negative return on energy or a wildly negative return on energy imputs.)

It sounds like Michels had some kind of utopian anarchism in mind with his critique. Like any kind of utopia, such goals are hopeless and by definition unobtainable.

What is needed, and to an extent what the US was founded on, is an activist anarchism that doesn't imagine some utopian end point, but just realizes that we must always be suspicious of power and work to undermine and disperse it. And the more entrenched and lopsided the power structure, the more necessary it is to work to dismantle it.

That doesn't mean that we are dreaming that there will be some day when we can rest and not have to struggle against power.

It means that there will always be plenty of work for activist anarchists to do--no possibility joblessness, here!!