4 ms·

This is a common problem in any capitalist economy. Wealth tends to aggregate toward the top of the pyramid while people at the buttress, the people who do the

This is a common problem in any capitalist economy. Wealth tends to aggregate toward the top of the pyramid while people at the buttress, the people who do the actual work, get shafted. What you see in colleges and universities, you see the same thing in corporations and almost every business organization in the world. This is a common problem. Why this occurs is very logical. It stems from a natural drive for people to maximize wealth while minimizing work. Leaders acting rationally will minimize their own work and maximize wealth. Thus, the leader, by being in control of an organization, will structure it such that he meets this rational goal. The side effect is unfair distribution of wealth and work. What's the solution? In theory, Communism. In practice, only early pre-civilization tribal cultures have had societies where leaders only get their fair share.

nickff 11y ago
In practice, pre-civilization cultures had some of the most rapacious, kleptocratic, arbitrary, and vendictive leaders ever. Modern tribes in many countries exhibit similar behaviour. Large institutions are (in practice) the most communist organisations in the western world (as they are managed top-down with a great deal of government support), and yet they seem to exhibit the problems you describe more than many 'capitalist' organizations. You are using a Marxist analysis which is characterized by biased, myopic comparisons, and thinking based on personal preferences and sentiments, as well as the Cohen fallacy, and (unsurprisingly) reaching a Marxist result.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >In practice, pre-civilization cultures had some of the most rapacious, kleptocratic, arbitrary, and vendictive leaders ever. Modern tribes in many countries exhibit similar behaviour One could say the same of modern cultures. I'm not talking about the quality of the leader, I'm referring to the amount of power he has to redirect wealth and work. The only difference between modern leaders and tribal is in pre-civilization cultures, leaders had very limited power because the concept of wealth has not been fully established; leaders in the modern age, however, derive power from wealth. Thus as a result leaders in tribes are more or less relatively equal in power with all the other members of the tribe. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29 >Large institutions are (in practice) the most communist organisations in the western world (as they are managed top-down with a great deal of government support), and yet they seem to exhibit the problems you describe more than many 'capitalist' organizations. They do. I never said they didn't. I only said communism was a solution in theory as opposed to how in practice in doesn't work. Read what I said again. >You are using a Marxist analysis which is characterized by biased, myopic comparisons, and thinking based on personal preferences and sentiments, as well as the Cohen fallacy, and (unsurprisingly) reaching a Marxist result. Not only is this not true. But it is an unnecessary and veiled insult. I did not reach a marxist result. Read it again: The only two possible solutions was communism (which only works in theory, and has been shown to be flawed in practice) and some pre-civilization tribal culture, both of which are worse then the current system. There is no need to make comments about my character by saying I'm biased or myopic. It makes me angry and makes you look bad. What if I said something along the lines of: "When someone sits on the top for too long they develop harsh and protective views to justify their superior and unfair positions." Would that be an accurate description of you? Maybe, maybe not, but either way totally unnecessary.
jeffdavis 11y ago
You chose a strange example from which to make your point. Universities are fairly special kinds of places and often have a lot of public or charitable funding. They are hardly the epitome of capitalism.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  They organize themselves in a pyramid structure, which is a feature of capitalism. Even non-profit organizations are made this way which is more a phenomenon of society imitating society rather then what would happen naturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    You are essentially just relabeling every observation of something bad as a feature of capitalism, and ignoring bad things that happen in other systems. Pretty horrible things happened in the name of communism and socialism and early tribal societies. I don't see what's special about capitalism that causes pyramids (if anything, it seems more decentralized than a lot of other options). Pyramids seem more like a feature of large groups of people.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >You are essentially just relabeling every observation of something bad as a feature of capitalism, and ignoring bad things that happen in other systems. Pretty horrible things happened in the name of communism and socialism and early tribal societies. Just like how many horrible things have happened in capitalism. I'm not ignoring these things. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm presenting a reasonable explanation as to why there is wealth inequality in colleges: It's a feature of capitalism not exclusive to colleges. Let me make it more clear. I said the solution to this problem was either to switch to communism which only works in theory (and has been shown in most instances to be bad in practice) OR regress back to tribal like culture which is the only type of culture that has been show to have a relatively flat organizational structure in practice. Do either of these solutions sound appealing? No, They don't, and that's my point. There's no clear answer to this, capitalism is the best thing we've got right now but it is not perfect. >I don't see what's special about capitalism that causes pyramids (if anything, it seems more decentralized than a lot of other options). Pyramids seem more like a feature of large groups of people. This is not true. In nature when you look at early hunter-gatherers or tribes you see relatively flat structures with maybe one leader and everyone else being more or less equal. It is like this because one human can only hold so much power over another. You can think of this in terms of playground politics; can one child dictate the fate and actions of all the other children consistently? You can have leaders in playgrounds but these leaders can't tell all the children to start marching single file like the way leaders in north korea do it. It is only at the dawn of civilization (or capitalism) do you see pyramid structures start to form. People in this age begin gaining huge, almost obscene amounts of unnatural power as lords, kings, queens and emperors and can command hundreds and thousands of people to build insane projects like great walls and huge pyramids. How can one man hold so much power? Wealth. Once man gains the ability to save wealth you will get people who manage to store up obscene amounts of it and people who own a paltry amount. Now the rich man can pay the desperate poor man to do his bidding. In fact the rich man can employ thousands of poor people to do his bidding, but he'll probably need to employ managers to handle the load. What does that organizational structure look like to you? A pyramid. Wealth, money and capitalism leads directly to pyramids. I shouldn't say that pyramids are a feature of capitalism. Pyramids are a feature of wealth inequality. Wealth inequality, in turn, is a feature of capitalism. That's not to say I think capitalism is all bad. Excessive wealth leads to the ability to efficiently command human capital to build boeing 747s, the subway systems and other projects that benefit society as a whole. Being rich also leads to a huge amount of leisure time that allows people to stop foraging for food and develop hobbies like math, chemistry and science... therefore indirectly leading to the modern technological civilization as we know it today. Make no mistake, society as we know it is built on capitalism, but this does not justify wealth inequality. Life is unfair.

nickff 11y ago

In practice, pre-civilization cultures had some of the most rapacious, kleptocratic, arbitrary, and vendictive leaders ever. Modern tribes in many countries exhibit similar behaviour. Large institutions are (in practice) the most communist organisations in the western world (as they are managed top-down with a great deal of government support), and yet they seem to exhibit the problems you describe more than many 'capitalist' organizations. You are using a Marxist analysis which is characterized by biased, myopic comparisons, and thinking based on personal preferences and sentiments, as well as the Cohen fallacy, and (unsurprisingly) reaching a Marxist result.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
>In practice, pre-civilization cultures had some of the most rapacious, kleptocratic, arbitrary, and vendictive leaders ever. Modern tribes in many countries exhibit similar behaviour One could say the same of modern cultures. I'm not talking about the quality of the leader, I'm referring to the amount of power he has to redirect wealth and work. The only difference between modern leaders and tribal is in pre-civilization cultures, leaders had very limited power because the concept of wealth has not been fully established; leaders in the modern age, however, derive power from wealth. Thus as a result leaders in tribes are more or less relatively equal in power with all the other members of the tribe. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29 >Large institutions are (in practice) the most communist organisations in the western world (as they are managed top-down with a great deal of government support), and yet they seem to exhibit the problems you describe more than many 'capitalist' organizations. They do. I never said they didn't. I only said communism was a solution in theory as opposed to how in practice in doesn't work. Read what I said again. >You are using a Marxist analysis which is characterized by biased, myopic comparisons, and thinking based on personal preferences and sentiments, as well as the Cohen fallacy, and (unsurprisingly) reaching a Marxist result. Not only is this not true. But it is an unnecessary and veiled insult. I did not reach a marxist result. Read it again: The only two possible solutions was communism (which only works in theory, and has been shown to be flawed in practice) and some pre-civilization tribal culture, both of which are worse then the current system. There is no need to make comments about my character by saying I'm biased or myopic. It makes me angry and makes you look bad. What if I said something along the lines of: "When someone sits on the top for too long they develop harsh and protective views to justify their superior and unfair positions." Would that be an accurate description of you? Maybe, maybe not, but either way totally unnecessary.

jeffdavis 11y ago

You chose a strange example from which to make your point. Universities are fairly special kinds of places and often have a lot of public or charitable funding. They are hardly the epitome of capitalism.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
They organize themselves in a pyramid structure, which is a feature of capitalism. Even non-profit organizations are made this way which is more a phenomenon of society imitating society rather then what would happen naturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  You are essentially just relabeling every observation of something bad as a feature of capitalism, and ignoring bad things that happen in other systems. Pretty horrible things happened in the name of communism and socialism and early tribal societies. I don't see what's special about capitalism that causes pyramids (if anything, it seems more decentralized than a lot of other options). Pyramids seem more like a feature of large groups of people.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >You are essentially just relabeling every observation of something bad as a feature of capitalism, and ignoring bad things that happen in other systems. Pretty horrible things happened in the name of communism and socialism and early tribal societies. Just like how many horrible things have happened in capitalism. I'm not ignoring these things. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm presenting a reasonable explanation as to why there is wealth inequality in colleges: It's a feature of capitalism not exclusive to colleges. Let me make it more clear. I said the solution to this problem was either to switch to communism which only works in theory (and has been shown in most instances to be bad in practice) OR regress back to tribal like culture which is the only type of culture that has been show to have a relatively flat organizational structure in practice. Do either of these solutions sound appealing? No, They don't, and that's my point. There's no clear answer to this, capitalism is the best thing we've got right now but it is not perfect. >I don't see what's special about capitalism that causes pyramids (if anything, it seems more decentralized than a lot of other options). Pyramids seem more like a feature of large groups of people. This is not true. In nature when you look at early hunter-gatherers or tribes you see relatively flat structures with maybe one leader and everyone else being more or less equal. It is like this because one human can only hold so much power over another. You can think of this in terms of playground politics; can one child dictate the fate and actions of all the other children consistently? You can have leaders in playgrounds but these leaders can't tell all the children to start marching single file like the way leaders in north korea do it. It is only at the dawn of civilization (or capitalism) do you see pyramid structures start to form. People in this age begin gaining huge, almost obscene amounts of unnatural power as lords, kings, queens and emperors and can command hundreds and thousands of people to build insane projects like great walls and huge pyramids. How can one man hold so much power? Wealth. Once man gains the ability to save wealth you will get people who manage to store up obscene amounts of it and people who own a paltry amount. Now the rich man can pay the desperate poor man to do his bidding. In fact the rich man can employ thousands of poor people to do his bidding, but he'll probably need to employ managers to handle the load. What does that organizational structure look like to you? A pyramid. Wealth, money and capitalism leads directly to pyramids. I shouldn't say that pyramids are a feature of capitalism. Pyramids are a feature of wealth inequality. Wealth inequality, in turn, is a feature of capitalism. That's not to say I think capitalism is all bad. Excessive wealth leads to the ability to efficiently command human capital to build boeing 747s, the subway systems and other projects that benefit society as a whole. Being rich also leads to a huge amount of leisure time that allows people to stop foraging for food and develop hobbies like math, chemistry and science... therefore indirectly leading to the modern technological civilization as we know it today. Make no mistake, society as we know it is built on capitalism, but this does not justify wealth inequality. Life is unfair.