It’s exactly that. There’s no one person, no group of people, that can control a market. It’s a force, an abstract concept at this point. Any thoughts that it can be controlled is hubris or naivety.
What’s your ideal situation? They create make work jobs? Give the development and production teams some brooms and fire the custodial staff instead? Their job is done. Time to find new ones.
My personal ideal? A democratically run workplace with no permanent executive leadership. Rotating leadership duties, with maybe a Roman Republic style emergency power dictatorship, with a simple majority needed to end said emergency powers.
Ideal response to this situation? Fire the leadership who fucked up, or cut their pay at least, before firing anyone else. They make much more than ordinary workers.
You ever seen a camel? It’s a horse that’s been designed by a committee. Democratically run things don’t accomplish shit because you can never get groups of people to agree on anything.
Camels are pretty dang well designed creatures so I’d say the committee did pretty great there. And the alternative is being at the whims of a single person or a small group none of whom have any incentive to care about anything other than the enrichment of their own personal finances. It’s a literal autocracy.
Governance structures where the workers own and have a say in the means of production are bound to have their own issues to be sure, but it beats out the current model.
They might be good at being camels, but they’re terrible horses. And if you’ve ever tried to lead a group of more than a handful of people, you’d know they can never agree on shit. Someone has to make the call.
Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. Guess I’d just rather have a voice in a mediocre place than be someone’s peon even if I respected their strategy.
Go figure! People with different personal priorities existing! What a world!
Be which way? I honestly don’t know what you mean. I just said why I still have the ideals/preferences that I do despite the problems you pointed out with an ancient cliché.
Y’know, just having different preferences, like I said.
You ever seen a camel? It’s a horse that’s been designed by a committee. Democratically run things don’t accomplish shit because you can never get groups of people to agree on anything.
It’s exactly that. There’s no one person, no group of people, that can control a market. It’s a force, an abstract concept at this point. Any thoughts that it can be controlled is hubris or naivety.
I’m not talking about controlling the market, I’m talking about deciding who to fire.
What’s your ideal situation? They create make work jobs? Give the development and production teams some brooms and fire the custodial staff instead? Their job is done. Time to find new ones.
My personal ideal? A democratically run workplace with no permanent executive leadership. Rotating leadership duties, with maybe a Roman Republic style emergency power dictatorship, with a simple majority needed to end said emergency powers.
Ideal response to this situation? Fire the leadership who fucked up, or cut their pay at least, before firing anyone else. They make much more than ordinary workers.
Nice
You ever seen a camel? It’s a horse that’s been designed by a committee. Democratically run things don’t accomplish shit because you can never get groups of people to agree on anything.
Camels are pretty dang well designed creatures so I’d say the committee did pretty great there. And the alternative is being at the whims of a single person or a small group none of whom have any incentive to care about anything other than the enrichment of their own personal finances. It’s a literal autocracy.
Governance structures where the workers own and have a say in the means of production are bound to have their own issues to be sure, but it beats out the current model.
They might be good at being camels, but they’re terrible horses. And if you’ve ever tried to lead a group of more than a handful of people, you’d know they can never agree on shit. Someone has to make the call.
Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. Guess I’d just rather have a voice in a mediocre place than be someone’s peon even if I respected their strategy.
Go figure! People with different personal priorities existing! What a world!
No reason to be that way, we were having a nice conversation.
Be which way? I honestly don’t know what you mean. I just said why I still have the ideals/preferences that I do despite the problems you pointed out with an ancient cliché.
Y’know, just having different preferences, like I said.
I’m sorry, I took this the wrong way:
You ever seen a camel? It’s a horse that’s been designed by a committee. Democratically run things don’t accomplish shit because you can never get groups of people to agree on anything.