6 ms·

I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production.

by ue_ 10y ago

js8 10y ago
I agree with you. Unfortunately feminism is often too self-centered as a leftist ideology so it tends to ignore other classes and other inequalities.
- ChristianBundy 10y ago
  All struggle is class struggle. Intersectional feminism (egalitarianism?) is supposed to address this, but somehow it tends to miss the mark -- at least in the parts of society that I've been exposed to.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Probably not. There are a few places which already approach this socialist ideal - hedge funds, some management consulting firms and some law firms. In this firms, employees control the means of production because employees are the means of production. Such firms tend to be mostly owned by employees themselves. These firms are not known for being family friendly or having a work life balance. The reason is that these firms are populated by high productivity, high effort individuals. Such people rarely want to work with people less dedicated than themselves, people they rightly think of as underperformers. (I've worked with such people in the past and it's dreadful.) In your proposed world, high productivity employees would likely self segregate into high productivity firms which would not be particularly family friendly. Lower productivity employees who want to take years off from the workforce and put family first would shift into lower productivity firms. This means the same inequality would exist. Women would work at the family friendly firms, their husbands would work at the high productivity firms, and the inequality would continue. (In fact, even in the modern world, inequality of this sort has been the primary driver of inequality growth. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 )
- ue_ 10y ago
  Thank you for the insight. I was being semi facetious with my comment; owning the MoP isn't the only required change for a Socialist society; I had similar thoughts to yours with regard to segregation of the more and less productive. Though I am not sure how this problem can be addressed. I suspect that the fact that humans wouldn't have to work so much would alleviate part of the problem.
- shanacarp 10y ago
  Actually, this isn't true in the slightest. The VAST majority of management consulting firms, law firms, and yes, even investment firms like hedge funds are very small and closely held. Most do not get to global size with hundreds of employees ala Renassaisance or BCG or MoFo. They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly. This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.
WalterBright 10y ago
There's nothing stopping you and like minded people from setting up your own corporation where you collectively control the means of production.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Co-ops would be a great idea, if it weren't for the fact that they have to balance automation with caring for the workers, which is highly inefficient for making profit, which is necessary to survive in a capitalist ecosystem. Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable. It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    tl;dr; co-ops would be a great idea if they didn't suck at meeting the needs of consumers.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      It should be recognised that meeting the needs of consumers and meeting high standards for the workers is a difficult thing to get right. Meeting the needs of consumers when it comes at the expense of worker rights I would argue is a bad thing outright. The consumer is not always right, especially when the consumer is so influenced by advertising and the culture of consumption. I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour.
      - harryh 10y ago
        You don't have to get a job. Plenty of people don't. You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. You aren't forced to sell your labour. It's just that most people do so because they want to things they can get in exchange.
edblarney 10y ago
"I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production." Employees do control the means of production. They make all the decisions and do all the work. You probably meant to say own the means of production. Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :) Anybody is free to create a startup with 100% employee ownership - you can do it today. All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :) This is an uncharitsble and pessimistic view of the development of socialist theory since the failure of such regimes. Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure. >All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will. Precisely; you can see that it is almost impossible to avoid exploitation of yourself or others worjers within capitalism.
  - kofejnik 10y ago
    all factual evidence leads to inevitable conclusion that Communist and Socialist theory is a steaming pile of horseshit source: born in USSR
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Living in the USSR isn't a valid argument against socialism, it merely shows that the USSR's methods were not good, if anything.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure." Ha. Yes. That argument. It's funny debating about the colour of the night sky with people.

I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production.

by ue_ 10y ago

I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production.

js8 10y ago

I agree with you. Unfortunately feminism is often too self-centered as a leftist ideology so it tends to ignore other classes and other inequalities.

ChristianBundy 10y ago
All struggle is class struggle. Intersectional feminism (egalitarianism?) is supposed to address this, but somehow it tends to miss the mark -- at least in the parts of society that I've been exposed to.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Probably not. There are a few places which already approach this socialist ideal - hedge funds, some management consulting firms and some law firms. In this firms, employees control the means of production because employees are the means of production. Such firms tend to be mostly owned by employees themselves. These firms are not known for being family friendly or having a work life balance. The reason is that these firms are populated by high productivity, high effort individuals. Such people rarely want to work with people less dedicated than themselves, people they rightly think of as underperformers. (I've worked with such people in the past and it's dreadful.) In your proposed world, high productivity employees would likely self segregate into high productivity firms which would not be particularly family friendly. Lower productivity employees who want to take years off from the workforce and put family first would shift into lower productivity firms. This means the same inequality would exist. Women would work at the family friendly firms, their husbands would work at the high productivity firms, and the inequality would continue. (In fact, even in the modern world, inequality of this sort has been the primary driver of inequality growth. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 )

ue_ 10y ago
Thank you for the insight. I was being semi facetious with my comment; owning the MoP isn't the only required change for a Socialist society; I had similar thoughts to yours with regard to segregation of the more and less productive. Though I am not sure how this problem can be addressed. I suspect that the fact that humans wouldn't have to work so much would alleviate part of the problem.
shanacarp 10y ago
Actually, this isn't true in the slightest. The VAST majority of management consulting firms, law firms, and yes, even investment firms like hedge funds are very small and closely held. Most do not get to global size with hundreds of employees ala Renassaisance or BCG or MoFo. They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly. This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.

WalterBright 10y ago

There's nothing stopping you and like minded people from setting up your own corporation where you collectively control the means of production.

ue_ 10y ago
Co-ops would be a great idea, if it weren't for the fact that they have to balance automation with caring for the workers, which is highly inefficient for making profit, which is necessary to survive in a capitalist ecosystem. Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable. It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  tl;dr; co-ops would be a great idea if they didn't suck at meeting the needs of consumers.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    It should be recognised that meeting the needs of consumers and meeting high standards for the workers is a difficult thing to get right. Meeting the needs of consumers when it comes at the expense of worker rights I would argue is a bad thing outright. The consumer is not always right, especially when the consumer is so influenced by advertising and the culture of consumption. I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour.
    - harryh 10y ago
      You don't have to get a job. Plenty of people don't. You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. You aren't forced to sell your labour. It's just that most people do so because they want to things they can get in exchange.

edblarney 10y ago

"I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production." Employees do control the means of production. They make all the decisions and do all the work. You probably meant to say own the means of production. Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :) Anybody is free to create a startup with 100% employee ownership - you can do it today. All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.

ue_ 10y ago
>Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :) This is an uncharitsble and pessimistic view of the development of socialist theory since the failure of such regimes. Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure. >All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will. Precisely; you can see that it is almost impossible to avoid exploitation of yourself or others worjers within capitalism.
- kofejnik 10y ago
  all factual evidence leads to inevitable conclusion that Communist and Socialist theory is a steaming pile of horseshit source: born in USSR
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Living in the USSR isn't a valid argument against socialism, it merely shows that the USSR's methods were not good, if anything.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure." Ha. Yes. That argument. It's funny debating about the colour of the night sky with people.