5 ms·

what is your point?

shadowgovt 7y ago
That Chomsky's ideal end-goal is unrealistic because it is inherently dynamically unstable. Small worker-owned cooperatives plus a free market is an ecosystem ripe for larger worker-owned cooperatives to create incentive structures that let them dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure.
- monadic2 7y ago
  Tbh I do not think Chomsky has written on his ideals the way others have, much of his positions are extrapolated from his critiques on other states (please correct me if I am wrong). However he has positively identified himself as an anarchy-syndicalist. There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large: convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse, seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations, denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. a critical aspect of anarchist societies is lack of private property and capital. Trade unions can hold much of the power; I can’t speak to the concepts of anarchist states. In fact the idea of anarchist currency (anarchy-capitalism or market socialism, I guess?) is something I am unfamiliar with, in part because it obscures the cost in man time and effort it takes to produce a good or service—rather easy too, just consider subscription services where you pay a flat rate, or the labor it takes to get you chocolate or coffee vs how much it is valued in terms of your wages (presumably in a post-industrialization service economy if you’re on this forum). Similarly I do not know what an anarchist state is. Regardless, the idea is founded in large part on the concept of mutual aid. There is certainly plenty of research into how mutual aid tends towards or away from stability. A quick google search turns up this, for instance: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    > There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence > denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration
    - monadic2 7y ago
      > Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.
        monadic2 7y ago
        > How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing. Well the traditional linguistic connotations of possession certainly persist. Here "seize" simply means take control of.
- dls2016 7y ago
  As opposed to the current US system where large shareholder-owned corporations dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure?
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Thank you. So often when I talk about solutions people say “it won’t work” because of some problem they’ve identified. They completely miss whether the current system also has that problem and whether the proposed situation at least represents an improvement. I can’t solve every problem nor do I claim to! All human systems will have difficulties. But some systems are set up structurally to be more exploitative than others.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Yes. The system that currently exists is very realistic, by definition. To be clear, I'm criticizing the notion that small worker-owned / worker-managed corporations and a free market are an inherently stable structure (because free markets will favor consolidation). I'm not against large worker-owned / worker-managed corporations, and I think they could be a significant improvement on the ecosystem of shareholder-owned corps we find in the US.
    - rapind 7y ago
      I would agree. I think overall big picture analysis is good too. But if we can agree that there's an improvement to be made we should start to work iteratively towards that improvement keeping an eye out for further improvements and lessons. For starters we could make it easier to start and run worker coops. Next step would be to implement some small incentives (even getting the money from cutting currently awful subsidies in corporate welfare!).
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  I think we have very little experience with how democratically-controlled organizations would behave and interact in the long term. You may be right that centralization is inevitable for game-theoretic reasons. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well game theory can model the decisions of large groups of people who participate in multiple organizations at the same time. Definitely though, there are no examples from history of a society of democratic societies and how it might behave. Perhaps the closest examples are the ancient Greek cities and post-WW2 Europe (looking only at the state level, democratic corporations have not been tried to any large extent that I know of). In both those cases, there was no spontaneous centralization from within (i.e. one entity conquering the others), though for Europe it is still very early to tell, and there are future signs which may point to more centralization.

what is your point?

That Chomsky's ideal end-goal is unrealistic because it is inherently dynamically unstable. Small worker-owned cooperatives plus a free market is an ecosystem ripe for larger worker-owned cooperatives to create incentive structures that let them dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure.

monadic2 7y ago
Tbh I do not think Chomsky has written on his ideals the way others have, much of his positions are extrapolated from his critiques on other states (please correct me if I am wrong). However he has positively identified himself as an anarchy-syndicalist. There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large: convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse, seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations, denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. a critical aspect of anarchist societies is lack of private property and capital. Trade unions can hold much of the power; I can’t speak to the concepts of anarchist states. In fact the idea of anarchist currency (anarchy-capitalism or market socialism, I guess?) is something I am unfamiliar with, in part because it obscures the cost in man time and effort it takes to produce a good or service—rather easy too, just consider subscription services where you pay a flat rate, or the labor it takes to get you chocolate or coffee vs how much it is valued in terms of your wages (presumably in a post-industrialization service economy if you’re on this forum). Similarly I do not know what an anarchist state is. Regardless, the idea is founded in large part on the concept of mutual aid. There is certainly plenty of research into how mutual aid tends towards or away from stability. A quick google search turns up this, for instance: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00275386/document
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  > There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets and forcibly splitting or shuttering its operations Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence > denying it use of supply chains, of debt if the market has currency, etc. No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration
  - monadic2 7y ago
    > Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.
      - monadic2 7y ago
        > How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing. Well the traditional linguistic connotations of possession certainly persist. Here "seize" simply means take control of.
dls2016 7y ago
As opposed to the current US system where large shareholder-owned corporations dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure?
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Thank you. So often when I talk about solutions people say “it won’t work” because of some problem they’ve identified. They completely miss whether the current system also has that problem and whether the proposed situation at least represents an improvement. I can’t solve every problem nor do I claim to! All human systems will have difficulties. But some systems are set up structurally to be more exploitative than others.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Yes. The system that currently exists is very realistic, by definition. To be clear, I'm criticizing the notion that small worker-owned / worker-managed corporations and a free market are an inherently stable structure (because free markets will favor consolidation). I'm not against large worker-owned / worker-managed corporations, and I think they could be a significant improvement on the ecosystem of shareholder-owned corps we find in the US.
  - rapind 7y ago
    I would agree. I think overall big picture analysis is good too. But if we can agree that there's an improvement to be made we should start to work iteratively towards that improvement keeping an eye out for further improvements and lessons. For starters we could make it easier to start and run worker coops. Next step would be to implement some small incentives (even getting the money from cutting currently awful subsidies in corporate welfare!).
tsimionescu 7y ago
I think we have very little experience with how democratically-controlled organizations would behave and interact in the long term. You may be right that centralization is inevitable for game-theoretic reasons. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well game theory can model the decisions of large groups of people who participate in multiple organizations at the same time. Definitely though, there are no examples from history of a society of democratic societies and how it might behave. Perhaps the closest examples are the ancient Greek cities and post-WW2 Europe (looking only at the state level, democratic corporations have not been tried to any large extent that I know of). In both those cases, there was no spontaneous centralization from within (i.e. one entity conquering the others), though for Europe it is still very early to tell, and there are future signs which may point to more centralization.