6 ms·

You're looking at this at the wrong angle, a better lens would be: "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" I think optimizing for collab

by shimman 2mo ago

You're looking at this at the wrong angle, a better lens would be: "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" I think optimizing for collaboration, rather than dominion can only be seen as a good thing to allow humans to thrive. Also why are you assuming that parliaments would be the dominating collaboration structure? Your imagination is vastly limited if you're only looking toward western examples. At the opposite end, maybe a question to ask yourself if the current system is leading to good outcomes and for who because the vast majority of Americans are suffering as the result of our current neoliberal economic system that was forced upon us with no consent from the governed. Alternatives should be explored and giving voice to workers seems like the simplest thing we can do. People should be allowed to have a voice in the direction of their employment. Exit is not sufficient. Things can be better, only if we allow it to.

Xirdus 2mo ago
> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that? If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless. The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information. I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system. Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?

by shimman 2mo ago

Xirdus 2mo ago

> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that? If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless. The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information. I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system. Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?