4 ms·

Who are my capitalistic overlords in America?

by oh_sigh 5y ago

thescriptkiddie 5y ago
literally the owners of the the company you work for how are you this dense
- dang 5y ago
  Attacking another user like that will get you banned here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Please review the rules and don't do anything like this on HN again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. In addition, would you please stop posting flamewar comments generally (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28749013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28749013)? That's not what HN is for, and we've already had to ask you about this more than once.
culi 5y ago
If you're a member of the largest workforce (service sector) in America, when you go to work every day what say do you actually have in the way things are done? Is there any real democracy happening there? The ideal of democracy has been abstracted away from the personal and lived realities of many people to getting to vote for one of two options for president every 4 years (obviously you can vote in more elections, but whose got time to look into that you got work the next day?) For many people capitalism is just a reincarnation of feudalism for the industrial age
- smitty1e 5y ago
  What's unclear is whether shrinking everything to state control actually improves matters. Possibly concentrating all the power worsens the situation.
  - wyre 5y ago
    Anarchism implies no state control. Dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and corrupt politicians worsen situations. Putting power back into the hands of the community and it’s workers shouldn’t do that.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Some people have a hole in their brain that makes anarchism invisible to them. The only way they can respond to a critique of authority is to ask "have you considered the benefits of this other authority?"
      - smitty1e 5y ago
        You say "benefits", I say "inevitability". Neither Communism and anarchism seem to model well the requirement for a management layer, or its effects. These negatives are only transparent in capitalism, somehow.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        QED
      - petrocrat 5y ago
        I don't think that's what critics of anarchism are thinking. They just believe that anarchism is a metastable state (with a very short half-life) that inevitably reverts back to either a strong central authority or multiple vying strongmen making & enforcing claims on various regions.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  There hqve been gains in democracy in the capitalism context. From the 19th century to the 1970's power was slowly whittled away from the rentier class, but ever since then they have made a huge comeback and now the financilisation kf the economy is becoming a drain due to the debt servicing costs. Michael Hudson writes a great deal about it.
bccdee 5y ago
For one, investment in the US is directed by wealthy private investors. Which means that the entire bearing of its economy is undemocratic. It doesn't matter if a majority of the public favour heavy investment in (eg) green energy; if it's not profitable, it won't get done, and the government is paddling upstream any time it tries to resist the motivating flow of private investment. At a narrower scale, who decides how many hours you work? Did you elect that person, or were they forced upon you? Sure, you could quit & move to another company, but I could say the same of a citizen living in a tyrannical country. It doesn't make that country any less tyrannical. And at whichever company you switched to, you still wouldn't have any democratic input in the workplace. If you don't like your overlord, you can take a mulligan, but it's not easy to switch jobs, and all you end up with is a new overlord. Contrast this with a society in which investment was public and the workplace was democratic. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a substantial improvement on the current state of affairs in terms of overlords or the absence thereof.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > At a narrower scale, who decides how many hours you work? I during work contract negotiation? > Sure, you could quit & move to another company, but I could say the same of a citizen living in a tyrannical country. That is not really true, for two reasons: First, many tyrannical countries forbade that, with border guards shooting people trying to flee the country. That was common e.g. in eastern bloc communist countries. Second, work is just one of many dimensions of life, so having multiple separate and independent 'domains' is better than all-encompasing state/community. Therefore, switching work is just switching one of several dimensions, not a complete change as leaving a country. > but it's not easy to switch jobs, and all you end up with is a new overlord. If you do not want overlords, you can just be independent contractor offering services to public. I do not know about US, but where i live there is permanent shortage of these (so no worry about getting customers) and i knew people who do that exactly because they would not fit to typical corporate structure. > Contrast this with a society in which investment was public and the workplace was democratic. Current society says a little about how corporations are internally organized. You could have democratic workers' cooperatives competing in the market. The fact that they make just a small part of economy suggest they are not really effective or interesting.

Who are my capitalistic overlords in America?

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

literally the owners of the the company you work for how are you this dense

dang 5y ago
Attacking another user like that will get you banned here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Please review the rules and don't do anything like this on HN again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. In addition, would you please stop posting flamewar comments generally (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28749013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28749013)? That's not what HN is for, and we've already had to ask you about this more than once.

culi 5y ago

If you're a member of the largest workforce (service sector) in America, when you go to work every day what say do you actually have in the way things are done? Is there any real democracy happening there? The ideal of democracy has been abstracted away from the personal and lived realities of many people to getting to vote for one of two options for president every 4 years (obviously you can vote in more elections, but whose got time to look into that you got work the next day?) For many people capitalism is just a reincarnation of feudalism for the industrial age

smitty1e 5y ago
What's unclear is whether shrinking everything to state control actually improves matters. Possibly concentrating all the power worsens the situation.
- wyre 5y ago
  Anarchism implies no state control. Dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and corrupt politicians worsen situations. Putting power back into the hands of the community and it’s workers shouldn’t do that.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Some people have a hole in their brain that makes anarchism invisible to them. The only way they can respond to a critique of authority is to ask "have you considered the benefits of this other authority?"
    - smitty1e 5y ago
      You say "benefits", I say "inevitability". Neither Communism and anarchism seem to model well the requirement for a management layer, or its effects. These negatives are only transparent in capitalism, somehow.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        QED
    - petrocrat 5y ago
      I don't think that's what critics of anarchism are thinking. They just believe that anarchism is a metastable state (with a very short half-life) that inevitably reverts back to either a strong central authority or multiple vying strongmen making & enforcing claims on various regions.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
There hqve been gains in democracy in the capitalism context. From the 19th century to the 1970's power was slowly whittled away from the rentier class, but ever since then they have made a huge comeback and now the financilisation kf the economy is becoming a drain due to the debt servicing costs. Michael Hudson writes a great deal about it.

bccdee 5y ago

For one, investment in the US is directed by wealthy private investors. Which means that the entire bearing of its economy is undemocratic. It doesn't matter if a majority of the public favour heavy investment in (eg) green energy; if it's not profitable, it won't get done, and the government is paddling upstream any time it tries to resist the motivating flow of private investment. At a narrower scale, who decides how many hours you work? Did you elect that person, or were they forced upon you? Sure, you could quit & move to another company, but I could say the same of a citizen living in a tyrannical country. It doesn't make that country any less tyrannical. And at whichever company you switched to, you still wouldn't have any democratic input in the workplace. If you don't like your overlord, you can take a mulligan, but it's not easy to switch jobs, and all you end up with is a new overlord. Contrast this with a society in which investment was public and the workplace was democratic. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a substantial improvement on the current state of affairs in terms of overlords or the absence thereof.

zajio1am 5y ago
> At a narrower scale, who decides how many hours you work? I during work contract negotiation? > Sure, you could quit & move to another company, but I could say the same of a citizen living in a tyrannical country. That is not really true, for two reasons: First, many tyrannical countries forbade that, with border guards shooting people trying to flee the country. That was common e.g. in eastern bloc communist countries. Second, work is just one of many dimensions of life, so having multiple separate and independent 'domains' is better than all-encompasing state/community. Therefore, switching work is just switching one of several dimensions, not a complete change as leaving a country. > but it's not easy to switch jobs, and all you end up with is a new overlord. If you do not want overlords, you can just be independent contractor offering services to public. I do not know about US, but where i live there is permanent shortage of these (so no worry about getting customers) and i knew people who do that exactly because they would not fit to typical corporate structure. > Contrast this with a society in which investment was public and the workplace was democratic. Current society says a little about how corporations are internally organized. You could have democratic workers' cooperatives competing in the market. The fact that they make just a small part of economy suggest they are not really effective or interesting.