Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Worker Self-Management

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:15:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The title of the first video adequately refutes the notion that "worker self-management" gets anywhere.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:17:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:15:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The title of the first video adequately refutes the notion that "worker self-management" gets anywhere.

It's important to note that this specific person defines "work" differently than most as he explains in this videos.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:18:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:17:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:15:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The title of the first video adequately refutes the notion that "worker self-management" gets anywhere.

It's important to note that this specific person defines "work" differently than most as he explains in this videos.

his videos*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:28:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:17:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:15:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The title of the first video adequately refutes the notion that "worker self-management" gets anywhere.

It's important to note that this specific person defines "work" differently than most as he explains in this videos.

How so? I don't like watching videos when I'm discussing something serious. It's slower than text.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:35:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow. Those were actually some pretty interesting videos.

I haven't really thought too much about the difference between "you own yourself" and "you are yourself", though I've heard of it before. I think it was because I felt that since anarchy was pretty much never going to happen in my lifetime anyways, it's pretty much pointless to go even further to think about which type of anarchy I liked, unless I lacked other more interesting or important things to attend to.

I'm not too sure worker's *REAL* wages decreased after the division of labor was implemented. To be frank, I don't have and have never seen the stats on wages of that time, but I'm inclined to believe (yes, I don't have a strong opinion either way) that the video is not right on this point. This point, though, is made less important in the face of the bigger issue of the videos. The corruption I believe the state has on capitalism does not address these problems; even if the state was eliminated, issues of this type would still exist in significant degrees. It hasn't been too big of a highlight for me before, but now that these videos bring it in this light, I am reminded of the importance of the strong desire of the individual. And I agree, centralization inevitably leads to bureaucracy, regardless of whether or not the monopolization of force is involved.

What it and the second video did not convince me of (yet) is that "worker equity" is the solution. It's got me d*mn close though, and I'll be watching more of this guy's videos and related videos next morning.

Short form: Great argument, but I'm still calling myself an anarcho-capitalist until I figure out why [this thing that's being argued for] isn't capitalistic.

And just nitpicking, though perhaps it might be a big issue: In the first video, the guy makes a differentiation between products made for the market, and products made for the people. What does that mean? The market is defined as the aggregate of all people. Does he advocate no mass production?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:41:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh yeah. Just the right number of rings, freedo :)

At 4/5/2010 11:45:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ring ring

At 4/6/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
ring

At 4/6/2010 12:15:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
ring ring ring, BANANAPHOOOOONE~!
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:44:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:28:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:17:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:15:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The title of the first video adequately refutes the notion that "worker self-management" gets anywhere.

It's important to note that this specific person defines "work" differently than most as he explains in this videos.

How so? I don't like watching videos when I'm discussing something serious. It's slower than text.

It's probably not too foreign of a concept; he just says that if your loving your work than it isn't really work. He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness. He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:50:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:35:02 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Wow. Those were actually some pretty interesting videos.

I haven't really thought too much about the difference between "you own yourself" and "you are yourself", though I've heard of it before. I think it was because I felt that since anarchy was pretty much never going to happen in my lifetime anyways, it's pretty much pointless to go even further to think about which type of anarchy I liked, unless I lacked other more interesting or important things to attend to.

I'm not too sure worker's *REAL* wages decreased after the division of labor was implemented. To be frank, I don't have and have never seen the stats on wages of that time, but I'm inclined to believe (yes, I don't have a strong opinion either way) that the video is not right on this point. This point, though, is made less important in the face of the bigger issue of the videos. The corruption I believe the state has on capitalism does not address these problems; even if the state was eliminated, issues of this type would still exist in significant degrees. It hasn't been too big of a highlight for me before, but now that these videos bring it in this light, I am reminded of the importance of the strong desire of the individual. And I agree, centralization inevitably leads to bureaucracy, regardless of whether or not the monopolization of force is involved.

What it and the second video did not convince me of (yet) is that "worker equity" is the solution. It's got me d*mn close though, and I'll be watching more of this guy's videos and related videos next morning.

Short form: Great argument, but I'm still calling myself an anarcho-capitalist until I figure out why [this thing that's being argued for] isn't capitalistic.

And just nitpicking, though perhaps it might be a big issue: In the first video, the guy makes a differentiation between products made for the market, and products made for the people. What does that mean? The market is defined as the aggregate of all people. Does he advocate no mass production?

Glad to see your interest. What I think he means by "products made for the market, and products made for the people" is that the purpose of the market should be to support our own happiness. But what has happened now is that we feed into this system so much that we actually work against the very reason it exists by creating harsh working conditions. Instead of feeding into the market for it's own sake we should focus on the main goal for which it exists in the first place which is to increase our standard of living.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:52:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:41:03 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Oh yeah. Just the right number of rings, freedo :)

At 4/5/2010 11:45:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ring ring

At 4/6/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
ring

At 4/6/2010 12:15:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
ring ring ring, BANANAPHOOOOONE~!

lmao
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.

He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:04:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.
Do you have any particular examples?

He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
Why not?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:10:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:04:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.
Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)


He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
Why not?
If they were, it would no longer be a sector not subject to the efficiency-reaping benefits of specialization, it's really that simple-- if you have complicated tasks, you both increase the number of competent possibilities and increase the output if you specialize to simpliy the task. That's why assembly lines beat out take-home manufacturing as a business model-- because you get much more product for the hour.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:21:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:10:48 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:04:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.
Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)


He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
Why not?
If they were, it would no longer be a sector not subject to the efficiency-reaping benefits of specialization, it's really that simple-- if you have complicated tasks, you both increase the number of competent possibilities and increase the output if you specialize to simpliy the task. That's why assembly lines beat out take-home manufacturing as a business model-- because you get much more product for the hour.

Both your arguments are in the form "If [subject] was actually efficient and good, we would have it right now", which makes the current world always the final utopia, which I will always vehemently disagree with. But anyways.

Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)
No, I wanted specific examples. I want to see if the reason for why they didn't work out was because of the rest of the system. Somalia's anarchy only started working them after 5 or so years of internal warfare, because their entire system could not function without the things that the state had monopolized. I want to see if these worker owned company things are the same way: are they not as effective as the "Libertarian Left" claims them to be, simply because of certain things in our current system - say, how we're trained by public schools and mass media, to be slaves that won't think for themselves and will only follow the leader, which in turn decreases the total amount of production if they try doing things themselves?

Same response to the other part. I covered its topic as well in the above reply.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:03:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:21:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:10:48 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:04:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.
Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)


He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
Why not?
If they were, it would no longer be a sector not subject to the efficiency-reaping benefits of specialization, it's really that simple-- if you have complicated tasks, you both increase the number of competent possibilities and increase the output if you specialize to simpliy the task. That's why assembly lines beat out take-home manufacturing as a business model-- because you get much more product for the hour.

Both your arguments are in the form "If [subject] was actually efficient and good, we would have it right now, because nobody is stopping it and it has been attempted", which makes the current world always the final utopia, which I will always vehemently disagree with. But anyways.
It doesn't make the current world "always" the best, merely better than the things that have already been tried without government in the way and failed are obviously suboptimal.


Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)
No, I wanted specific examples.
I didn't pay that much attention, sorry ^_^.

are they not as effective as the "Libertarian Left" claims them to be, simply because of certain things in our current system - say, how we're trained by public schools and mass media, to be slaves that won't think for themselves and will only follow the leader
By that standard, no one would ever be suitable to be a CEO, thus harming the standard business model just as much as co-ops.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:05:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In any case, you're STILL free to create co-ops. Accept only private school students if you like. It doesn't take political advocacy to prove me wrong if in fact I am-- just a business decision.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:38:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:03:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:21:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:10:48 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:04:00 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:00:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He suggests that the work place be under the workers control and that tedious jobs either be reduced or automated to increase happiness
We already do the latter, doing it more as a social policy means less economic efficiency means less goods means less to be happy about (doing it more because you invent a new technology is good, but does not belong in the politics forum). The former has historically crap results.
Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)


He also suggest that people have a chance to try many things and not get stuck in a boring routine.
In other words, he's suggesting that division of labor be abolished, and thereby we revert to primitive standards of living. There are jobs that are less routine than others, but there are few of them, and there should be-- most people are not competent to contribute efficiently in that manner.
Why not?
If they were, it would no longer be a sector not subject to the efficiency-reaping benefits of specialization, it's really that simple-- if you have complicated tasks, you both increase the number of competent possibilities and increase the output if you specialize to simpliy the task. That's why assembly lines beat out take-home manufacturing as a business model-- because you get much more product for the hour.

Both your arguments are in the form "If [subject] was actually efficient and good, we would have it right now, because nobody is stopping it and it has been attempted", which makes the current world always the final utopia, which I will always vehemently disagree with. But anyways.
It doesn't make the current world "always" the best, merely better than the things that have already been tried without government in the way and failed are obviously suboptimal.
Again, timeframe.


Do you have any particular examples?
Simple, really. There've been several movements to form lots of them-- says it in loads of history books in school for one thing (And the educational establishment would love it). No one stopped them. It's just that too many failed for the model to spread. If the model was workable on a regular basis, it would have spread further by now, since workers would go there instead of being employed)
No, I wanted specific examples.
I didn't pay that much attention, sorry ^_^.


are they not as effective as the "Libertarian Left" claims them to be, simply because of certain things in our current system - say, how we're trained by public schools and mass media, to be slaves that won't think for themselves and will only follow the leader
By that standard, no one would ever be suitable to be a CEO, thus harming the standard business model just as much as co-ops.
You treat things as if they are 100% what their nametag is, and that they're 100% efficient. And I was just about to explain this further, about how nobody really believes that and everyone just uses short form for convenience so they don't have to say, every time, how their words as the dictionary defines them aren't used in the exact manner (ex: "schools kill creativity" is usually not meant to say "the public school education has a 100% efficiency rate at killing 100% of creativity in 100% of students) but then I realized that you're R_R and you're never going to leave the semantics game. So whatever.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?