Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:47 pm

I imagine a world where human beings are fully self governing, where no one is

alientated from their own economic activity and we all direct our economic activity
rather than have it directed by Capital. Capital is just a factor supplier and
commodification of things is limited, where human need and national interest trumps
private desire for profit. An ownership economy consisting of a massive patchwork of
private enterprises, which consist if US, responding as always, to market demands,
wants, needs.


You keep mentioning we need an idea from out of the socialist-capitalist spectrum,
then keep suggesting things that Primo de Rivera already advocated for and became
Spanish Fascism.

There are only two ways of managing things. One is to let somebody you trust manage
them. The other is to let people manage them. Your standard proposal is to turn workplaces into Unions, arguing this falls into the category of letting people do the
management, and while variations of this arrangement exist everywhere on the wild
already, I think it is obvious by now that there are lots of industries in which this
arrangement won't cut it.

But we already end up having this conversation so you already know how this goes.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:29 am

You keep mentioning we need an idea from out of the socialist-capitalist spectrum,
then keep suggesting things that Primo de Rivera already advocated for and became
Spanish Fascism.

I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can't seem to make the connection here. You're talking about the dictator here, right?

There are only two ways of managing things. One is to let somebody you trust manage
them. The other is to let people manage them. Your standard proposal is to turn workplaces into Unions, arguing this falls into the category of letting people do the
management, and while variations of this arrangement exist everywhere on the wild
already, I think it is obvious by now that there are lots of industries in which this
arrangement won't cut it.

We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. There seems to be a disconnect here. We want the government which makes life and death decisions, which has greater impact on us than any single company, to be run democratically, but companies not?

I'm not sure how these 'two ways' are different. Both involve people managing and NEITHER of them describe our current Capitalist system. You don't get to either choose someone you trust OR to get to manage. Since when do I get to choose someone I trust to manage?

But we already end up having this conversation so you already know how this goes.

Sure do.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:50 am

I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can'

Rivera is, for practical purposes, the original ideologue of the Spanish phalanx.

One of his biggest selling points was turning every industry into a Union or Cooperative. In fact, when the Phalanx managed to get to power and General Franco was established as the Leader, there was a lot of discontent because his policies were not as aggressive as Rivera's proposals. You can still witness fisfights in pro-Fascist bars when some Franco advocate wants to defend him against a Rivera advotace.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:50 am

We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. Th but companies not?

Nation-States are not run like anything resembling a cooperative. They often try to tell us such so we buy into the narrative that we are all the State, but in practice there is a big gap of power between the people up the food chain and the people down the food chain, in such a way that declarations that underdogs have a say is illusory.

ie. we tell Jack that he has a saying and that his voting counts, but this is a farce because:

1) Jack's only method of contributing to set policies is by voting a representative into power, but there are no accountability meassures to ensure Jack's representative will represent Jack once he gets to office.

2) The representatives Jack can choose from are pre-selected from him. The criteria for deciding who may run for office is decided by people who not necesarily represent Jack interests. This is why so many ellections turn into contests to vote the lesser evil in instead of voting somebody you actually WANT to see in office (and this should be regarded as a red flag that the Government's "Board" is not representative at all).

3) The Government has many powers that Jack doesn't have. Jack cannot delegate into a regular Cooperative rights Jack does not have (for example: Jack does not have the right to kill other Cooperative members or seize the assets of other Cooperative members). The Government has lots of powers that people does not have (such as killing people or taking their things). In practical terms, this sets the Government's "Board" in a qualitatively outsider realm, far away from the subjects they rule, as opposed to a regular Cooperative, in which the representatives of a farming group are farmers.

4) Jack cannot quit the Nation State without subjugating himself to a different Nation State, because Nation States won't allow anything else. Nation States are engineered in such a way that every person under their command is a slave who believes he is not a slave, and set up as to extract the most productivity from them (be it work or political support). Rights are usufructary: Jack is entitled to have hens in a pen only as long as the Government does not need the hens itself. In a Cooperative, the Cooperative may suspend Jack's benefits (or so called "negative rights", such as having access to a hen feed bank) but
may not suspend Jack's right to ownership (including self-owneship).

If anything, a Nation State is a corporation with a small board of executives who may force anybody to buy their stocks, yet they are unaccountable for, and the shareholders are powerless worms in their hands.



--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 06:58 am

Rivera is, for practical purposes, the original ideologue of the Spanish phalanx.

One of his biggest selling points was turning every industry into a Union or Cooperative. In fact, when the Phalanx managed to get to power and General Franco was established as the Leader, there was a lot of discontent because his policies were not as aggressive as Rivera's proposals. You can still witness fisfights in pro-Fascist bars when some Franco advocate wants to defend him against a Rivera advotace.

I'll have to read up on this, but details do matter to me, that is where the devil is. It seems, from your description alone, something quite different, but familiar to fascists. Fascists saw society in groups, so that different sections were seen a pillar of society, hence the 'fascis'.

To be clear, this is not what I'm describing at all. It is a VERY different proposition to lump farmers into one entity, manfacturers of heavy machinery into another. I've NEVER advocated anything like that. Putting people from different firms into one political entity has nothing at all to do with anything I've described, and seems incompatible. Unionisng or collectivising an industry is country to the principles of self-governance. I've neither advocated unionising or collectivism.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 07:29 am

Nation-States are not run like anything resembling a cooperative. They often try to tell us such so we buy into the narrative that we are all the State, but in practice there is a big gap of power between the people up the food chain and the people down the food chain, in such a way that declarations that underdogs have a say is illusory.

ie. we tell Jack that he has a saying and that his voting counts, but this is a farce because:

1) Jack's only method of contributing to set policies is by voting a representative into power, but there are no accountability meassures to ensure Jack's representative will represent Jack once he gets to office.

Do we in the West in general believe that Jacks' power and say should be limited, or that he should have more freedom and ability to be heard?

2) The representatives Jack can choose from are pre-selected from him. The criteria for deciding who may run for office is decided by people who not necesarily represent Jack interests. This is why so many ellections turn into contests to vote the lesser evil in instead of voting somebody you actually WANT to see in office (and this should be regarded as a red flag that the Government's "Board" is not representative at all).

In Australia, anyone can run. It's not dead easy to do, but you can run as an independent. Its easier to run for the senate.

Do we in the West believe that we should have more freedom to enter politics, or less?

3) The Government has many powers that Jack doesn't have. Jack cannot delegate into a regular Cooperative rights Jack does not have (for example: Jack does not have the right to kill other Cooperative members or seize the assets of other Cooperative members). The Government has lots of powers that people does not have (such as killing people or taking their things). In practical terms, this sets the Government's "Board" in a qualitatively outsider realm, far away from the subjects they rule, as opposed to a regular Cooperative, in which the representatives of a farming group are farmers.

Aside from the fact I'm not advocating collectivism, this is true, but this detail comes from the vastly different function that the government has, as compared to a pet food factory. One would expect to see some details in different. Nevertheless, do we in the West believe that the government's powers to do things we can't should be expanded or curtailed to only what is necessary?

4) Jack cannot quit the Nation State without subjugating himself to a different Nation State, because Nation States won't allow anything else. Nation States are engineered in such a way that every person under their command is a slave who believes he is not a slave, and set up as to extract the most productivity from them (be it work or political support). Rights are usufructary: Jack is entitled to have hens in a pen only as long as the Government does not need the hens itself. In a Cooperative, the Cooperative may suspend Jack's benefits (or so called "negative rights", such as having access to a hen feed bank) but
may not suspend Jack's right to ownership (including self-owneship).

That is true, but the "Nation States" won't allow anything else isn't. There are no alternatives because the Earth has been completely settled and there is nowhere not taken by nation states left. But I'm a little lost as to what you are trying to prove here? You support the current economic system, which subjets people to Communist like control at work. If you support freedom, you have to support it everywhere.

If anything, a Nation State is a corporation with a small board of executives who may force anybody to buy their stocks, yet they are unaccountable for, and the shareholders are powerless worms in their hands.

My questions were rhetorical. We know that people in general want self-governance in the 'public' life. Democracy is flawed, but it is flawed because it doesn't give us enough power and freedom and is exploited, not because it DOES give us a right to govern ourselves.

We understand and support the concepts behind Democracy, even though the application isn't quite right. That was my point, that we support the idea of self-governance and trust it over dictatorial control in what is a very important sphere. It therefore doesn't follow for the same people to think that running a pet food factory is so important, they have to abrogate their rights to an authority. It just doesn't make sense at all. This argument for the current status quo is mostly supported by fear mongering, that the world would fall apart if we didn't skew property rights towards the few.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jul 24 2022 12:09 pm

My questions were rhetorical. We know that people in general want self-gove vern ourselves.

We understand and support the concepts behind Democracy, even though the app doesn't follow for the same people to think that running a pet food factory ering, that the world would fall apart if we didn't skew property rights tow

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.or

First of all, I'd argue that most people are not actual democrats and therefore the rethorical questions fall on their faces. You can see this today: everybody wants democracy, but once they don't get the results they want they try to break the system. The efforts placed in isolating political oponents break democracy.

You have mentioned multiple times that our current governing systems is failed because there is a gap and a missalineation between rulers and rules. If I were to conceede the government is a cooperative, I would destroy your thesis that cooperative ownership works by pointing at the innumerable failing "cooperatives", so I am doing you a favor by arguing Governments are not like cooperatives.

In a democratic system you get the improductive scumbags to vote so the productive losers give up their earnings to the improductives. THere is strong incentive for a significant (and I would say mayoritary) segment of the population to spand the power of the government and ruin Jack's rights in the process if need be. The push in politics, at its very base, at the guy next door level, is to destroy self-ownership. Cooperatives may have pathological behaviours from time to time but I haven't see such level of rot in any I know.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL