Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

berlinparisexpress OP t1_iwgkvhx wrote

Flat organizations and self-managing teams do exist and have been working for a long time, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_organization

Same concept. Why wouldn't this work?

17

PitifulNose t1_iwgljy9 wrote

Not saying it doesn’t exist or can’t work…. Just saying that in practice the only real world use case is crypto related.

Ever heard of capitalism? The idea of profit sharing evenly amongst workers is diametrically opposite the stated goals of capitalism. This is the main choke point as to why this idea will not scale.

I’m not saying I don’t like it. I do. But capitalism is the rule of law for businesses. It’s going to be almost impossible to get wider adoption of this.

11

crimsonblade55 t1_iwgpqzt wrote

I mean it just seems like a new age way of setting up a co-op. I doubt you could set up a large corporation like this, but the type of people who support co-ops would likely be against creating such a large company to begin with.

9

gredr t1_iwh13hh wrote

There are lots of large employee-owned companies...

2

Mountain-Lecture-320 t1_iwh6349 wrote

By market share? The prior commenter saying business believe in capitalist profit-is-law is correct; capitalist realism has cultural hegemony, for better or worse.

3

gredr t1_iwihewi wrote

Well, I guess "large" is a subjective term, you're right. Definitely larger than "mom-and-pop"...

1

_AndyJessop t1_iwgola2 wrote

Is this not just because:

a) it's based on blockchain so of course it started in crypto orgs.

b) that industry is only a few years old, so of course it's still going to exist mainly in crypto orgs.

8

gredr t1_iwh101q wrote

Ever heard of socialism? You described socialism. It works well, every day, in the US as well as many other countries. Ever shopped at a WinCo? Scheels? Hy-Vee? These companies are owned by and democratically managed by their employees. None of them need or use crypto to accomplish this.

2

ovirt001 t1_ix5fxlp wrote

What you describe as "socialism" exists in capitalism. Employees can be compensated with a portion of the company that grants them voting rights (which is exactly what these companies do).

1

gredr t1_ix5j2jt wrote

Sure... elements of one system can certainly exist in another system. I think it's probably save to say that there are no "pure" implementations of any economic system anywhere in the world...

1

flyswithdragons t1_iwhyysp wrote

I am a liberal Egalitarian capitalist, the belief in human equality.. the Nordic model economic and social system is close to my beliefs

Actually socialism is an authoritarian top down system. Go look at all the socialist economic structures, the government owns the people and labor. Mass murders occur because the took morals out, cull non conforming ideals and people. The lie in socialism is you can sacrifice the individual for the greater society. The people exchange individual rights * usually at government gun point * for a social contact. Ever research pol pot ?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/egalitarianism

From the old school threshing floors at harvest time ( they were capitalist)

Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.[4] Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all citizens of a state should be accorded exactly equal rights.[5] Egalitarian doctrines have motivated many modern social movements and ideas, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.[6]

−4

ylateef t1_iwi3u8a wrote

Totalitarian regimes in the 20th century called themselves "Socialist" to cover up the fact that they were totalitarian regimes. Democratic Socialism is something entirely different.

3

flyswithdragons t1_iwi7b4b wrote

There are a variety of ideologies in the Democrat party.. the socialist and Republicans thinking that social welfare programs are Communist is infuriating. I saw real Communist ideology from members of the party. During covid it was "forced relocation of rural areas to cities by xyz means". that is some dumb shit, and pol pot like. Talk of removing parents rights to educate children, " parents should have no say ".. also Asian structure in schools are the parents answers to the teachers not the other way around. I chased the money source and likely foreign money played a part ..

Democratic socialism is from Europe, not based on an equal rights society. The Democratic socialist in the USA advocated to trade some individual rights, give power to the government, for a social contract. The answer can be seen in NY, Colorado, Oregon, I think it was a big no.

Imo and it's fairy evidence based, one cannot protect a whole without the individual rights being protected. Without that, the majority will always cull the minority ( people or ideal) to gain their idealized society. The ends doesn't justify the means. The means, makes the end result.

−1

gredr t1_iwiiezk wrote

> the government owns the people and labor

No, the government is the people and labor. If the government isn't the people, then you're dealing with a dictatorship.

From Wikipedia:

> Pol Pot[b] (born Saloth Sâr;[c] 19 May 1925 – 15 April 1998) was a Cambodian revolutionary, dictator, and politician who ruled Cambodia

1

flyswithdragons t1_iwij49z wrote

Well said.. I do believe in a government of the people, and by the people. Dictatorships claim they do it for their people but we know how that goes in ownership of their ( slaves) people.

1

thruster_fuel69 t1_iwhhuik wrote

There's no rules in capitalism that say groups can't form and cooperate internally in whichever way makes the most profit for the group. If this model produces a good amount of value, it will be adopted. That's just how it works 🤷‍♂️

1

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iwis4so wrote

It doesn't matter if you are theoretically allowed to do anything when the bottom 80% only have 7% of the capital. The real world doesn't care about theoretical possibilities but does about real disadvantages.

1

thruster_fuel69 t1_iwisfdv wrote

The real world also provides more goods and services to help you build and run a business. It's really just lack of effort in most cases..

−1

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iwiyats wrote

Sorry but that simply isn't the case. Capital availability is what allows you to even attempt providing those things.

2

thruster_fuel69 t1_iwiyl4p wrote

And who brings the capital, really? The people first, then the investors. I'm no business prof. but creating a good product at a fair price is still the best way to get ahead. People just suck at scaling, but why cry about it..

0

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iwizkwj wrote

Workers build capital, workers build the cnc machines, they build the mining drills, they build the computers, workers are the source of capital, capitalists are just parasites.

4

thruster_fuel69 t1_iwizs05 wrote

Unrelated but I agree, just with a tweak: theyre beneficial parasites, when shit works. Basic labor isn't basic any more, the world needs smart people building smart shit.

1

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iwj0137 wrote

The hell are you talking about? They are unsessary, managers who are workers do everything a capitalist would anyways.

0

thruster_fuel69 t1_iwj0edr wrote

Those exist, hence the classifier "when shit works". In a dysfunctional environment those types are attracted and benefit well, causing what really looks like a disease.

Managers who shield their team from team-based mandatories can be very useful, if the goals are clear and culture is good. If it's all shit already though, it'll be infighting anyway, manager and everyone else.

1

flyswithdragons t1_iwhzcta wrote

That's cronyism, real free, markets require heavy regulations to prevent fraud and monopolies .. this is why the Nordic countries are rated more capitalist than the USA.

0

ovirt001 t1_ix5fnlt wrote

> Ever heard of capitalism? The idea of profit sharing evenly amongst workers is diametrically opposite the stated goals of capitalism. This is the main choke point as to why this idea will not scale.

Workers are capitalists willing to sell their time and effort valued by experience (college, real world experience, or both) for an agreed upon price. Employment is also a market. In many companies they can be partially compensated with a portion of the company (probably most common in Silicon Valley but exists elsewhere).

1

PitifulNose t1_ix5ntjy wrote

For the most part only top executives at publicly traded companies get stock as part of their comp.

So your thesis is that: workers that simply participate in a system that they can neither opt out of nor had a hand in creating are “capitalists too”…. So this makes them even culprits with the corporate goal to slash worker pay, raise consumer prices and beat up suppliers and competitors up the supply chain to shave as much profit off and pass it all to shareholders?

This sounds an awful lot like blame the slaves for slavery. Not saying your average worker is a slave per se, but their ability to opt out is just as futile.

1

ovirt001 t1_ix83prc wrote

> So your thesis is that: workers that simply participate in a system that they can neither opt out of nor had a hand in creating are “capitalists too”…. So this makes them even culprits with the corporate goal to slash worker pay, raise consumer prices and beat up suppliers and competitors up the supply chain to shave as much profit off and pass it all to shareholders? > > > > This sounds an awful lot like blame the slaves for slavery. Not saying your average worker is a slave per se, but their ability to opt out is just as futile.

The leverage of business owners over their employees is exactly why strikes are legal in the US. They prevent the owner from operating the business (or at least make it substantially more expensive) until they come to the negotiating table.

1

PitifulNose t1_ix892mc wrote

Strikes may be legal technically, but damn near half our states are “Right to work” states where businesses can fire anyone anytime without cause for any reason and not be sued. So anyone even talking about striking will get fired immediately, and the movement is dead before it even started.

It is very rare for workers to have any leverage over here. That is why our federal minimum wage only covers 25% of one months rent in most places.

1

ovirt001 t1_ixcyhbl wrote

Yup, the US has a long way to go to repair workers' rights.

1

tkuiper t1_iwgxesl wrote

>the stated goals of capitalism.

🙄 and what might those be?

Don't confuse corporatism/feudalism with capitalism.

Adam Smith made a model that says an economy of similar goods made and consumed by unburdened selfish people is most efficient when left in anarchy. Serving masters is antithetical to an anarchy and therefore capitalism. In capitalism you should never be working for anyone but yourself (management is a service). People who rig the economy to synonymize working for them and working for yourself aren't capitalist, they're feudalist's using their knowledge of how capitalism works to undermine it for themselves.

0

gredr t1_iwh1jyh wrote

Capitalism just means "private ownership of the means of production," meaning, I can go out and own a company and hire workers. Socialism, on the other hand, means "public ownership of the means of production," meaning, any given company is owned by the people that are working for the company; there's not some person at the top taking all the profits for themselves.

6

tkuiper t1_iwhdo9h wrote

'Companies', 'hiring, 'workers' are shorthand for common practices that come after. Like how a 1-3-5 is a common structure for music notes that it has become its own thing.

Both your definitions are correct, but you have a misunderstanding that is resulting in you making the incorrect extension to the meaning of socialism:

>any given company is owned by the people that are working for the company

Companies are an invention given a name because of common practice. The definitions of socialism and capitalism don't allude to companies, only people. So a corrected version would be:

>any given tools are owned by the government of the people working with the tools

A company is shorthand for when a person hires 'private contractors', those contractors buy or borrow tools from the person, and the person borrows tools/worker time but only with as much leverage and assets are included in their work and not things they use to survive.

I'm still simplifying a bit, but it's a complex series of interactions that has been shorthanded for convenience to 'a company'.

So why is that distinction important?

Because a person hiring private contractors and paying them a proportion of total profit is still capitalism. If the private contractors buy the tools or are even given them to own upon starting their help... still capitalism. It's just different versions of how a person can buy help.

Why does that distinction get blurred?

Because we now have people who have unified so much of a particular production they practically have the control of a government. And viola you mistakenly swapped government for company in your definition of socialism. Capitalism assumes anarchy and greed (an imperfect assumption), so having huge companies is anti-capitalist because it's too ordered and collaborative (the feudalists argument is to justify their greed because of capitalism even though they are no longer operating in a good capitalist environment).

So there are 2 options. You take the more capitalist approach: break up large companies and force a greater degree of anarchy. Or you recognize that large companies are essentially a government and take the socialist approach: no one may own the company or its assets and it is instead run like a government (democracy being our default). In other words the capitalist profit sharing method of hiring would become the mandatory method of hiring, so companies will naturally inflate into democracies instead of monarchies. Both options have a laundry list of technical struggles that mostly stem from the same issues the capitalist model struggles with: people being coercable, and people being rational (knowing economics and transparency to use that knowledge so caveat emptor is also anti-capitalist)

3

gredr t1_iwihxyv wrote

Your clarification is, of course, much more precise than my summary. I appreciate your input here, it's very helpful!

2

Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_iwh2a97 wrote

Except the people you described ARE capitalists."they aren't capitalists because they rig the economy to get you working only for them and only yourself". Yea dude, that's capitalism 🤣😂. Coining something with a different name just ignores the problems of the current system and is like fucking jamming earplugs in and screaming "NAH NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU".

Whatever you want to call it. "Corporatism", "oligarchy","plutocracy" it's capitalism dude

1

tkuiper t1_iwhfmlk wrote

Liking clarity and distinction between words isn't jamming in earplugs. Using words haphazardly until you can no longer even name the issue is.

You just declared that 3 words are all synonyms. How do you expect to change if you can't identify where you're starting from or where you're headed?

I responded to the other commentors point with clarifications of the definition, see if it means anything to you.

2

goatware t1_iwh6i97 wrote

Because capitalism at its core is all about moving capital to places where more capital can be extracted, it relies on constant growth and finding new ways to extract value from labor. Capitalism used to be relegated to parts of Europe and the Americas but it is now in every corner of the world which means that with open trade you have to be able to be or compete with the most exploitive companies on earth. It will take a majority of people on earth being able to take control of their own labor to be able to escape the reaches of capitalist overlords. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGiXIytFn57NoAUYlzU1ByI83slXwvS5b

0

GodofCOC-07 t1_iwgtdky wrote

Then you can come to north korea. You will be happy there

−3

berlinparisexpress OP t1_iwgv3nw wrote

Yes, the ONLY option to criticize the inner workings of capitalism is to ship oneself to the worse dictature in the world.

I don't think this is quite the own you think it is since you are the one acting like a literal thought police - for free.

9

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_iwgzqdi wrote

How is an organization “flat” if those who hold more coins (stake) have more votes?

2

stupidimagehack t1_iwjtq6r wrote

Org structure matters less than company size, and how economic benefit flow is to the participants.

1