3 ms·

Currently in society capitalism optimizes for profit over everything else. That is if killing babies (via pollution or whatever) yields a higher profit than not

Currently in society capitalism optimizes for profit over everything else. That is if killing babies (via pollution or whatever) yields a higher profit than not, Mr CEO will do that or risk not being as competitive as the company with a psychopath at the helm. An alternative way of organising society and production would be to optimise for the good of society instead of just profit. Attempts have been made to fix capitalism via regulations such as "the non-baby kill act of whatever". However, our "democratic" system is not really democratic, it more like an oligarchy. Therefore, MR CEO has to take into account bribing politicians to influence regulation in order to maximize profits. Instead of patching capitalism, a better idea is to introduce democracy from the ground up. That is we acknowledge that the work place has a greater impact on our daily lives than the government itself. If the workplace is ruled as a dictatorship, then workers of that place spend most of their productive time under an authoritarian regime. Democracy of the workplace would mean that every worker has a vote on how the company is ruled. Compensation would be a matter of concensus between the workers. Which would address the inequality we currently face. The idea that your friend had of a farmer working for free or some sort of barter is not something I share.

t0suj4 5y ago
How does this system take workers' interests into account? Some may be interested in doing the job and then go home. Them making decisions could end up looking like they vote for whatever their politically interested friend tells them to. What happens when a majority emerges composed of workers that are very interested and workers disinterested in workplace politics that they can make disfavorable decisions about the resulting minority? Such company could face the risk of hostile takeover by new hires if there were a need of quick hiring to fulfill for example the needs of big new customer.
- kentrado 5y ago
  >How does this system take workers' interests into account? Some may be interested in doing the job and then go home. Them making decisions could end up looking like they vote for whatever their politically interested friend tells them to. How does democracy takes the voter's interests into account? In your example you describe a hypothetical employee who doesn't have interest in how the workplace is run, then ask me how his lack of interest is represented as an interest? What's wrong with having the interest of people who are interested in the outcome represented. I don't understand your point. >What happens when a majority emerges composed of workers that are very interested and workers disinterested in workplace politics that they can make disfavorable decisions about the resulting minority? Then that would prompt them to become interested? I have never met anyone in all my years of working who exhibit the apathy you describe. People become apathetic when their voices are not heard. >Such company could face the risk of hostile takeover by new hires if there were a need of quick hiring to fulfill for example the needs of big new customer. You could solve that with some probation period before voting or something like that. But why are you assuming new hires are hostile? Why will new hires take over? They are not a foreign army nor would they be a homegenous group with a malicious agenda. Look I know hacker news is a hostile environment for these ideas. OP wanted a different perspective and I have given it to him. We can iron out details but overall high level thinking, I think is sound.

t0suj4 5y ago

How does this system take workers' interests into account? Some may be interested in doing the job and then go home. Them making decisions could end up looking like they vote for whatever their politically interested friend tells them to. What happens when a majority emerges composed of workers that are very interested and workers disinterested in workplace politics that they can make disfavorable decisions about the resulting minority? Such company could face the risk of hostile takeover by new hires if there were a need of quick hiring to fulfill for example the needs of big new customer.

kentrado 5y ago
>How does this system take workers' interests into account? Some may be interested in doing the job and then go home. Them making decisions could end up looking like they vote for whatever their politically interested friend tells them to. How does democracy takes the voter's interests into account? In your example you describe a hypothetical employee who doesn't have interest in how the workplace is run, then ask me how his lack of interest is represented as an interest? What's wrong with having the interest of people who are interested in the outcome represented. I don't understand your point. >What happens when a majority emerges composed of workers that are very interested and workers disinterested in workplace politics that they can make disfavorable decisions about the resulting minority? Then that would prompt them to become interested? I have never met anyone in all my years of working who exhibit the apathy you describe. People become apathetic when their voices are not heard. >Such company could face the risk of hostile takeover by new hires if there were a need of quick hiring to fulfill for example the needs of big new customer. You could solve that with some probation period before voting or something like that. But why are you assuming new hires are hostile? Why will new hires take over? They are not a foreign army nor would they be a homegenous group with a malicious agenda. Look I know hacker news is a hostile environment for these ideas. OP wanted a different perspective and I have given it to him. We can iron out details but overall high level thinking, I think is sound.